The role of mental toughness, psychological skills and team ...

The role of mental toughness, psychological skills

and team cohesion in soccer performance

By

Benjamin Asamoah

Thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Sport Science

in the Department of Sport Science, Faculty of Education

at

Stellenbosch University

Supervisor: Dr. Heinrich Grobbelaar

December 2013

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Stellenbosch University SUNScholar Repository

https://core.ac.uk/display/37420429?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-decoration-v1

i

Declaration

By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained

therein is my own, original work, that I am the authorship owner thereof (save to the

extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by

Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not

previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification.

Signature: Benjamin Asamoah

Date: December 2013

Copyright © 2013 Stellenbosch University

All rights reserved

Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to offer my sincere appreciation to my advisor and mentor, Dr. Heinrich

Grobbelaar, who has encouraged me in the pursuit of excellence in all areas of my life.

Throughout this project, he has been a great source of knowledge and challenged me to

rise to a higher level of performance. I thank you for your tremendous support, time and

guidance throughout this process. Indeed one could not have asked for a better mentor

and supervisor and no words can express my gratitude.

Prof. Elmarie Terblanche, I thank you for your assistance throughout this entire process

and for making my study and transition at Stellenbosch University a pleasant one.

I would also like to acknowledge Dr. James Adjei for his trust, support, confidence,

guidance and relentlessness in securing me this opportunity to pursue this study.

I would like to extend my thanks to Rev. Prof. J. Appiah-Poku and Prof. T. Agbenyega

for their advice, support, patience (especially bombarding them with calls and

Whatsapp) and for providing me with the opportunity to pursue my passion.

I am truly grateful to Prof. Martin Kidd for his advice, patience and time in responding to

my endless questions regarding the statistical analysis.

Prof. Justus Potgieter, your knowledge, experience and technical advice was invaluable

on this project. I really do appreciate the life lessons.

I am very grateful to the USSA Executive Committee for granting me the opportunity to

use their platform for this study.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the coaches and players of the respective

teams for their time, patience and willingness to participate in this study. This study

could not have been completed without your valuable input and willingness.

I would like to express my profound gratitude to Oscar Nauhaus, for your time, patience

and enthusiasm in helping me with the data gathering. Without your tenacity and prior

experience with data gathering, things would have been rather chaotic on the field.


iii

Additionally, I would like to thank the Vice Chancellor of Kwame Nkrumah University of

Science and Technology for providing funding for my studies here at Stellenbosch

University.

I wish to thank myself without whose help Biggie Bonsu would not have mastered her

cooking skills. Thank you Biggie for your help, encouragement and friendship through

all these years. We did it!

I would like to acknowledge the unconditional love and support of my family and friends.

My parents and sisters have been supportive with prayers and encouragement,

propelling me to the realisation that human beings have intrinsic worth; and there is

nothing more important than a family that loves you. I could not have ventured this far in

my life without their trust, belief and constant prayers. Special thanks to my friends both

here and abroad who have consistently expressed their confidence in me and in my

ability to achieve my dreams. Thank you.

All glory and honour be to God and our Lord Jesus Christ for granting me the ability and

opportunity to endeavour and discover myself in this journey. If it was not for the

gigantic figure of Christ I could not have made it this far.


iv

Dedication

I dedicate this thesis to my father Kwadwo Nkrumah.

Jesus Christ will not conquer in spite of the darkness of evil; He will conquer through it.


v

Summary

There is a relative lack of information in sport psychology research literature about the

role of psychological dimensions in team sport – especially in soccer (Reilly et al.,

2000). It is consequently not surprising that research on applied strategies in soccer has

concentrated mainly on technical, tactical and physiological aspects. This defies

anecdotal evidence and literature reports alluding to the importance of psychological

and team factors in achieving sport excellence.

This study examined the role of mental toughness, psychological skills and team

cohesion in soccer performance. It also considered differences between individuals

from different playing positions regarding these modalities.

A total of 263 male soccer players aged between 17 and 32 years from 16 South

African tertiary institutions participated in the study. A cross-sectional study design was

used to determine the players’ mental toughness, psychological skills and team

cohesion by means of the Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ); the Athletic

Coping Skills Inventory-28 (ACSI-28); and the Group Environmental Questionnaire

(GEQ). The final log standings at the 2012 University Sport South Africa (USSA) Soccer

Championship were used as an indication of team performance.

The results yielded differences between successful and less successful teams with

regard to age, previous tournament experience, and the time players had been part of

their respective teams.

There were no significant differences between the teams for any of the mental

toughness and psychological skills scores. However, group cohesion did play a role in

team performance. The more successful teams scored better than their less successful

counterparts in the following subscales of the GEQ: Individual attraction to group-social

and individual attraction to group-task. However, the less successful teams scored

better than their more successful counterparts regarding group integration-task, and

group integration-social.

Practical significant differences of moderate magnitude were observed for five of the 96

player positional comparisons. Midfielders scored higher than the defenders and


vi

forwards on the control subscale of the SMTQ. The forwards recorded higher scores

than midfielders with regard to the GEQ subscale of group integration-task, whereas

goalkeepers yielded higher scores than midfielders on the group integration-task

subscale. There was a difference between the scores on the constancy subscale of the

SMTQ where the defenders outscored the midfielders. No positional differences were

recorded for any of the psychological skills.

The overall results revealed that at the developmental level of the study sample, team

cohesion and other moderating variables might be the key to enhanced performance of

soccer teams. In addition, the results supported the general assumption that a

relationship exists between playing positions in team sports and various psychological

variables.


vii

Opsomming

Daar is ’n relatiewe gebrek aan navorsingsliteratuur in sportsielkunde oor die rol van

sielkundige dimensies in spansoorte – veral in sokker (Reilly et al., 2000). Dit is

gevolglik logies dat navorsing oor toegepaste strategieë in sokker hoofsaaklik fokus op

tegniese, taktiese en fisiologiese aspekte. Dit druis in teen anekdotiese getuienis en

opvattings wat dui op die belangrikheid van sielkundige en spanfaktore in die bereiking

van sportuitnemendheid.

Hierdie studie ondersoek die rol van geestelike taaiheid, sielkundige vaardighede en

spankohesie in sokkerprestasie. Dit bestudeer ook die verskille tussen individue van

verskillende speelposisies met betrekking tot hierdie modaliteite.

’n Totaal van 263 manlike sokkerspelers tussen die ouderdom van 17 en 32 jaar, van

16 Suid-Afrikaanse tersiêre inrigtings, het aan hierdie ondersoek deelgeneem. ’n

Dwarsdeursnitstudie-ontwerp is gebruik om spelers se geestelike taaiheid, sielkundige

vaardighede en spankohesie te bepaal deur middel van die Sports Mental Toughness

Questionnaire (SMTQ); die Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28 (ACSI-28); en die Group

Environmental Questionnaire (GEQ). Die finale posisies van spanne op die punteleer na

afloop van die 2012 Universiteit Sport Suid-Afrika (USSA) sokkertoernooi is gebruik as

aanduiding van hul prestasie.

Die resultate het verskille opgelewer tussen suksesvolle-en minder-suksesvolle spanne

met betrekking tot ouderdom, vorige toernooi-ervaring, en die tydperk wat spelers lede

van hul onderskeie spanne was.

Daar was geen beduidende tellingverskille tussen spanne rakende enige van die

geestelike taaiheid en sielkundige vaardighede nie. Groepkohesie het egter ’n rol in

spanprestasie gespeel. Die meer-suksesvolle spanne het beter gevaar as die minder-

suksesvolle spanne in die volgende subskale van die GEQ: Individuele aantreklikheid

van die groep-sosiaal; Individuele aantreklikheid van die groep-taak. Die minder-

suksevolle spanne het egter beter gevaar as die meer-suksesvolle spanne met

betrekking tot: Groepintegrasie-taak, en Groepintegrasie-sosiaal.


viii

Prakties beduidende verskille is waargeneem vir vyf van die 96 speelposisie-

vergelykings. Middelveldspelers het hoër tellings behaal as verdedigers en voorspelers

op die beheer-subskaal van die SMTQ. Voorspelers het beter tellings aangeteken as

middelveldspelers op die GEQ subskaal groepintegrasie-taak; terwyl doelwagters hoër

tellings as middelveldspelers op die subskaal groepintegrasie-taak aangeteken het.

Daar was ’n verskil in die konstantheid-subskaal van die SMTQ waar verdedigers beter

as middelveldspelers gevaar het. Daar was geen beduidende verskille tussen

speelposisies rakend enige van die sielkundige vaardighede nie.

Die oorkoepelende bevindinge dui daarop dat op die ontwikkelingsvlak van die

studiesteekproef, spankohesie, en ander prestasiedimensies moontlik die sleutel bevat

vir verhoogde prestasie-uitkomste van sokkerspanne. Verder ondersteun die resultate

die algemene aanname dat daar ’n verband bestaan tussen speelposisies in

spansportsoorte en verskeie sielkundige veranderlikes.


ix

Contents

Chapter One: Problem Statement 1

Background 1

Purpose of the study 4

Specific aims 4

Potential outcomes of the study 5

Chapter Two: Literature Review 6

Mental toughness 7

Conceptualisation 7

Beginnings of mental toughness research 8

Definitions and attributes of mental toughness 9

Development and maintenance of mental toughness 17

Measurement of mental toughness 21

The Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI) 21

The Mental Toughness Questionnaire-48 (MTQ-48) 22

The Mental Toughness Inventory (MTI) 23

The Psychological Performance Inventory-Alternative (PPI-A) 23

The Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ) 24

Summary 25

Psychological dimensions/skills 26

Motivation 26

Goal setting 29


x

Arousal regulation 31

Competitive anxiety 31

Attentional focus 34

Attentional models 35

Imagery 36

Self-confidence 38

Psychological skills training 39

The psychological skills-performance relationship 41

Group cohesion 42

Early perspectives 42

More recent definitions and concepts 43

Factors that influence cohesion 45

Cohesion and performance 47

Psychological demands of different playing positions 48

Chapter Three: Research Methodology 50

Procedure 50

Participants 51

Inclusion/exclusion criteria 51

Measuring instruments 52

The Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ) 52

The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28 (ACSI-28) 52

The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) 53

Descriptive statistics of the questionnaires 53


xi

Measurement of performance 55

Statistical analysis 55

Chapter Four: Results 57

Age 57

USSA tournament experience 59

Period players had been part of a team 61

Total mental toughness 63

Confidence 63

Constancy 66

Control 66

Composite psychological skills 66

Confidence and achievement motivation 70

Coachability 70

Goal setting 73

Concentration 73

Coping with adversity 76

Peaking under pressure 76

Freedom from worry 79

Individual attraction to group-social 79

Individual attraction to group-task 82

Group integration-task 83

Group integration-social 86

Positional comparisons 88


xii

Chapter Five: Discussion 95

Player demographics 95

Age 95

Tournament experience 96

Time period being a member of a team 96

Mental toughness and psychological skills 96

Mental toughness 96

Psychological skills 97

Team cohesion 99

Individual attraction to group-social (ATG-S) 99

Individual attraction to group-task (ATG-T) 99

Group integration-task (GI-T) 99

Group integration-social (GI-S) 100

Player position comparisons 101

Mental toughness 101

Psychological skills 102

Team cohesion 103

Chapter Six: Conclusions and Recommendations 105

Conclusions 105

The role of age, experience and team membership 105

Mental toughness and psychological skills 105

Team cohesion 105

Playing positions comparisons 106


xiii

Limitations 106

Recommendations 107

Research 107

Applied practice 108

Summary 108

References 109

Appendix A: Information sheet and consent form 137

Appendix B: Letter to the USSA Executive Committee 143

Appendix C: Measuring instruments 144


xiv

Figures

Figure 4.1: Between-group comparisons of age 59

Figure 4.2: Between-group comparisons of USSA tournament experience 61

Figure 4.3: Between-group comparisons for the period players had been

part of a team 63

Figure 4.4: Between-group comparisons of individual attraction to group–

social scores 82

Figure 4.5: Between-group comparisons of individual attraction to group–

task scores 83

Figure 4.6: Between-group comparisons of group integration–task scores 86

Figure 4.7: Between-group comparisons of group integration–social scores 88

Figure 4.8: Comparisons between player positional groups for the constancy

subscale 90

Figure 4.9: Comparisons between player positional groups for the control

subscale 90

Figure 4.10: Comparisons between player positional groups for the group

integration-task subscale 94


xv

Tables

Table 3.1: Descriptive Statistics and Alpha Coefficients for the SMTQ, ACSI-28

and GEQ Subscales 54

Table 4.1: Between-group comparisons of age 58

Table 4.2: Between-group comparisons of USSA tournament experience 60

Table 4.3: Between-group comparisons for the period players had been part of

a team 62

Table 4.4: Between-group comparisons of total mental toughness scores 64

Table 4.5: Between-group comparisons of confidence scores 65

Table 4.6: Between-group comparisons of constancy scores 67

Table 4.7: Between-group comparisons of control scores 68

Table 4.8: Between-group comparisons of composite psychological skills

scores 69

Table 4.9: Between-group comparisons of confidence and achievement

motivation scores 71

Table 4.10: Between-group comparisons of coachability scores 72

Table 4.11: Between-group comparisons of goal setting scores 74

Table 4.12: Between-group comparisons of concentration scores 75

Table 4.13: Between-group comparisons of coping with adversity scores 77

Table 4.14: Between-group comparisons of peaking under pressure scores 78

Table 4.15: Between-group comparisons of freedom from worry scores 80

Table 4.16: Between-group comparisons of individual attraction to group–

social scores 81

Table 4.17: Between-group comparisons of individual attraction to group-

task scores 84


xvi

Table 4.18: Between-group comparisons of group integration–task scores 85

Table 4.19: Between-group comparisons of group integration–social scores 87

Table 4.20: Comparisons between player positional groups (SMTQ) 89

Table 4.21: Comparisons between player positional groups (ACSI-28) 91

Table 4.22: Comparisons between player positional groups (GEQ) 93


xvii

Abbreviations

α : Cronbach Alpha

% : Percentage

= : Equal

≤ : Less than or equal to

± : Plus minus

16 PFQ : 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire

3C’s : Commitment, Control, Challenge

4C’s : Commitment, Control, Challenge, Confidence

ACSI-28 : Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28

AFMTI : Australian Football Mental Toughness Inventory

ANOVA : Analysis of variance

ATG : Individual Attraction to the Group

ATG-S : Individual Attraction to Group-Social

ATG-T : Individual Attraction to Group-Task

CBT : Cognitive-behavioural theory

Cf. : Confer

CFA : Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CMTI : Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory

CSAI-2 : Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2

d : Cohen’s d – value

e.g. : For Example

ES : Effect Size

GEQ : Group Environment Questionnaire


xviii

GI : Group Integration

GI-S : Group Integration-Social

GI-T : Group Integration-Task

i.e. : That is

LSD : Least Significant Difference

M : Mean

MTI : Mental Toughness Inventory

MTQ-48 : Mental Toughness Questionnaire-48

n : Sample size/ Number of participants in each subgroup

p : Probability

PCA : Principal Component Analysis

PPI : Psychological Performance Inventory

PPI-A : Psychological Performance Inventory-Alternative

PST : Psychological Skills Training

SD/s : Standard Deviation

SMTQ : Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire

Sp : Pooled standard deviation

USSA : University Sports South Africa

vs. : Versus


1

Chapter One

Problem Statement

Background

At the turn of the 21st century an estimated 250 million people in more than 200

countries played soccer (also internationally known as “football”). The game is the

world’s most popular sport supporting a worldwide industry worth about US$400 billion

(Guttman, 1993; Mueller et al., 1996; Dunning, 1999).

Soccer is a fast, multifaceted and multi-skilled team game characterised by short

sprints, rapid acceleration and deceleration, turning, jumping, tackling, heading,

passing, and striking for goal (Bangsbo, 1994; Wisloff et al., 1998).

Over the years soccer has developed into a more complex game in which optimal

performance depends on the interaction of five pillars: namely, technical skills, tactical

strategies, physiological factors, psychological skills, and team factors (e.g., team

dynamics and cohesion). Many coaches, however, focus almost exclusively on the first

three dimensions of the game mentioned above. This negates anecdotal evidence and

literature reports highlighting the importance of psychological aspects and team factors

in achieving optimal performance (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). Yet, coaches and athletes

often blame unsatisfactory performance on psychological factors with statements such

as “I wasn’t hungry enough” (achievement motivation); “She did not focus”

(concentration); “They choked under pressure” (activation control).

Mental toughness is one of the psychological dimensions considered essential for

performance excellence and wellbeing across a number of life domains. With regards to

sport, mental toughness is a term that coaches, athletes and sport psychology

consultants use when discussing psychological factors that differentiate between

successful and less successful athletes (Gucciardi et al., 2008; Tristan et al., 2010).

Despite the extensive use of the term “mental toughness”, there remains some

vagueness about the conceptualisation and practical application of mental toughness.

It’s only recently that researchers such as Jones et al. (2002), Thelwell et al. (2005) and


2

Gucciardi et al. (2009a) have provided some conceptual clarity to reduce the confusion

relating to the understanding and operationalisation of the concept.

Experts propose numerous attributes to clarify the nature of mental toughness.

Examples are: not letting adverse situations affect performance (Gould et al., 1987),

rebounding from failures (Woods et al., 1995), possessing superior mental skills (Bull et

al., 1996), having the ability to cope with pressure (Goldberg, 1998) and being resilient

(Crust, 2008).

Clough et al. (2002) believe that mental toughness comprises a variety of constructive

psychological factors that reduce negative cognitive and somatic effects. This enables

athletes to consistently perform well irrespective of situational factors. In other words,

mental toughness is not only relevant in the face of adversity but also facilitates an

appropriate focus and motivation even when circumstances are favourable (Gucciardi et

al., 2008).

Research findings acknowledge that mental toughness differentiates between more and

less successful competitors across a variety of sports, ranging from golf (Thomas &

Over, 1994) to equestrian events (Meyers et al., 1999). Other studies (e.g., Bull et al.,

2005; Thelwell et al., 2005; Gucciardi et al., 2008; Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009) identified

specific key psychological components that affect performance across many sports

codes. These include: self-confidence, self-motivation, attention control, hardiness,

enjoyment, ability to handle pressure, resilience and quality preparation. However,

some dimensions are sport-specific, such as reaction time, team cohesion and team

dynamics. In other words, the context of mental toughness may be determined by the

nature of a specific sport (Crust, 2008; Connaughton & Hanton, 2009; Gucciardi &

Gordon, 2009).

Apart from overall mental toughness, separate distinct mental skills also affect

performance. Empirical data suggest that competencies in such skills are reliable

predictors of performance (Smith & Christensen, 1994) and that they differentiate

between more and less successful athletes (Mahoney & Avener, 1977; Gould et al.,

1981). It can be assumed that players from diverse competitive levels might not only

differ in their physical skills, but also in their psychological skills. Therefore, the


3

identification of specific psychological skills that influence soccer performance should

provide valuable information regarding optimal preparation for training and matches

(Junge et al., 2000).

Researchers have given attention to the psychological characteristics of exceptional

athletes and made significant progress in psychologists’ understanding of this area.

Krane and Williams (2006) concluded that a number of psychological and behavioural

skills and strategies (e.g., goal setting, imagery, anxiety control, and coping skills) are

associated with peak performance. They further suggested that athletes can master

these skills and strategies through psychological skills training and consistent practice.

As psychological skills are developed and maintained with training, the benefit from

such training accumulates over the years.

Also, in the field of talent development the value of these skills should not be

underestimated. The claim that soccer is a demanding game that requires sustained

effort to deal with mental and physical pressure cannot be overemphasised. Therefore,

the identification of specific skills pertaining to the demands of different playing positions

should provide valuable information regarding optimal preparation for training and

competition.

Another factor that affects performance is team cohesion (Turman, 2003). Cohesion is

defined as “a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency of a group to stick

together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the

satisfaction of member affective needs” (Carron et al., 1998: 213). Cohesion entails task

and social dimensions (Carron, 1982). A review of literature by Carron et al. (2002)

confirmed that both task and social cohesion were associated with enhanced

performance. The findings of more recent researchers such as Heuze et al. (2007) and

Callow et al. (2009) have confirmed the positive relationship between cohesion and

performance.

Cohesion is a fundamental element of teamwork, because effective team functioning

requires a high level of team spirit and cooperation. The way teams deal with this,

distinguishes between successful and less successful outcomes (De Vries, 1999; Fiore

et al., 2001; Mach et al., 2010). A basic requirement for success is a type of cooperative


4

consciousness, where team members are aware of how their actions are interrelated

(Weick & Roberts, 1993; Mach et al., 2010). This allows the team to perform at a level

that is greater than the collective effort of all its individual members.

In conclusion: the three aspects discussed above – mental toughness, psychological

skills and team cohesion – are associated with optimal performance.

Williams and Franks (1998) pointed out that, there is uncertainty about exactly which

psychological constructs would facilitate the identification of talented soccer players.

Drawing on this observation Reilly et al. (2000), Williams and Reilly (2000), as well as

Coetzee et al. (2006), noted the importance of identifying the role and development of

the most favourable psychological profile for achieving soccer success, so that coaches,

administrators and sport psychologists could develop players with the most potential.

However, despite the potential practical value of the current study within a talent-

development context, the primary focus of the research reported in this thesis is not

talent identification, but rather the role of these factors in on-field soccer performance.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of the study was to determine the role of mental toughness, psychological

skills and team cohesion in soccer performance.

Specific aims

The specific aims of this study were to investigate…

1. the role of age, experience level and the time period players had been

part of a team, on team performance (by determining how each of these

aspects differentiate between more and less successful soccer teams).

2. the role of mental toughness, psychological skills and team cohesion scores

on team performance (by determining how each of these aspects

differentiate between more and less successful soccer teams).

3. whether mental toughness, psychological skills and team cohesion scores

of soccer players in different playing positions differ.


5

Potential outcomes of the study

The negation of the role of psychological modalities in sports has been documented in

literature (Hacker, 2000). Despite the fact that research into the psychological

dimensions has maintained a high profile in sports science, specific research in soccer

in this regard is deficient (Reilly et al., 2000) – even more so within the African soccer

context. There is scant research on the psychological skills that discriminate between

successful and less successful soccer players. Furthermore, the findings of the few

studies are often contradictory. This is unfortunate, because an understanding of the

role of psychological and team factors that enhance successful athletic performance is

essential for theory-based applied sport psychology.

The knowledge obtained from this study can contribute towards strengthening an

awareness of the importance of psychological constructs and their application at all

levels of the game.

In addition, exploring the specific demands of different playing positions should facilitate

the appropriate selection of players, or more importantly, the development of specific

training methods designed to implement psychological and team attributes considered

essential for optimal performance.


6

Chapter Two

Literature Review

The results of elite sport contests are often decided by narrow margins. Because elite

athletes and teams are usually physically, technically and tactically well prepared, the

difference between finishing, winning or losing is often determined by other factors (e.g.,

psychological states or team-related modalities). There has been a kindled interest in

the acquisition of psychological factors in gaining a competitive edge through

Psychological Skills Training (PST) Programmes. A number of theoretical frameworks

have been put forward for the development and implementation of PST interventions to

guide research and practice. Therefore, it is imperative to outline the framework used in

the current study.

The cognitive-behavioural theory (CBT) is one of the most widely used frameworks for

research in applied sport psychology, especially within the context of the development

and the implementation of psychological skills interventions (Hill, 2001). Applying CBT

within this research field advances theoretical, empirical and practical knowledge of

psychological constructs and how it affects the behaviour of athletes. This theory is a

combination of two theoretical models in general psychology: the cognitive model (in

which thought patterns and mental habits act as the driving force in processing

information to create a clear view of the environment) and the behavioural model (i.e.,

the systematic learning and experience gained through the environment in order to

influence self-enhancing behaviours while decreasing negative ones).

Interventions grounded in CBT allows athletes to be self-aware and behave in a manner

by taking cognisance of the self and others in understanding how their actions are

interrelated to help facilitate performance and sport experience (Oglesby, 1987; Hill,

2001). This allows the athlete to manage and control (self-regulate) both internal and

external states in response to the environment, thereby promoting personal success.

Mischel and Shoda (1995) and Smith (2006) surmised that, the self-regulation skills

allows one to exert control over his/her thoughts, feelings and actions by employing

both psychological (e.g., self-talk or visualisation) and physical strategies (e.g.,


7

breathing, muscle relaxation) to effectively organise actions and influence behaviour

outcomes.

The capacity to self-regulate and apply self-regulation skills (e.g., imagery, relaxation

techniques) in response to changes in the environment is deemed to be critical to the

success of athletes. Self-regulation refers to the ability of the athlete to regulate their

own internal functioning within the context of environmental changes, without constant

input from coaches or sport psychology consultants. Kirschenbaum (1984) regards self-

regulation as the ultimate goal of theoretically grounded PST programmes. Harmison

(2001) indicated that by understanding the cognitions, conditioned experiences and the

ensuing behaviour of an athlete and how they are organised and interconnected with

the athlete’s personality system will help researchers to better predict, explain and

develop mental skills in sport. This would essentially allow athlete’s to improve their

existing psychological skills in addition to addressing any weaknesses in their

competitive behaviour.

Within this particular theory mental toughness, psychological skills and team cohesion

are regarded as complex, cognitive-behavioural constructs that can be developed and

modified at the individual player or team level over time.

Mental toughness

Conceptualisation

Clough et al. (2002) point out that the general belief is that, mental toughness is a vital

contributing factor in the outcome of sport contests. Despite the pervasive support for

such a belief, it is surprising that in the literature on mental toughness there is a general

lack of conceptual clarity and consensus as to its definition and operationalisation

(Crust, 2007). The creation of a clear conceptualisation of mental toughness has been a

challenge because previous literature on mental toughness has lacked the ability to

distinguish between “what mental toughness is” and the essential attributes of being

mentally tough (Crust, 2007). However, there are some promising recent developments

in research in this area (e.g., Jones et al., 2002; Clough et al., 2002; Middleton et al.,

2004a; Bull et al., 2005; Gucciardi et al., 2008).


8

Researchers (e.g., Jones et al., 2002; Thelwell et al., 2005; Gucciardi et al., 2008,

2009a) have been persistent in their efforts to provide conceptual clarity by proposing

improved theoretical frameworks to study the attributes of mental toughness.

In the past, mental toughness has been explained mainly by lists of positive qualities

that mentally tough athletes possess, for example resilience, (Gould et al., 1987), the

ability to overcome setbacks and poor performance (Goldberg, 1998), and optimal self-

confidence (Clough et al., 2002). Jones et al. (2002, 2007) argue that these

psychological attributes have some competitive benefits (e.g., a psychological edge and

coping better than one’s opponents), which differentiate between successful and less

successful performances.

Beginnings of mental toughness research

The genesis of research related to the concept of mental toughness can be traced back

to the related work of Cattell in the 1950s. He identified tough-mindedness as one of 16

personality traits (assessed by his 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire) as an important

trait for success (Cattell, 1957). Cattell defined tough-mindedness as being realistic,

down to earth, independent, and responsible.

Alderman (1974) alluded to the association between mental toughness and sport

performance when he proposed that the best athletes need to be both physically and

mentally tough. He identified resilience as the core of mental toughness.

Loehr (1982, 1986) popularised the term mental toughness and kindled an interest for

more rigorous investigations. His work on mental toughness revolved around the

mental, emotional and physical conditioning of sportspersons – especially tennis

players.

Fourie and Potgieter (2001) published the first research article on the nature of mental

toughness in sport. They analysed the perceptions of a large sample of expert coaches

and elite athletes from diverse sports. After an inductive content analysis they identified

12 components of mental toughness. These are; motivation level, coping skills,

confidence maintenance, cognitive skills, discipline and goal directedness,

competitiveness, possession of prerequisite physical and mental requirements, team


9

unity, preparation skills, psychological hardiness, religious convictions and ethics.

However, being the first research of this kind it was not surprising that it was later

strongly criticised. For example Harmison (2011) expressed concern regarding the

contextualisation and comprehension of mental toughness, since Fourie and Potgieter’s

(2001) discussion, propositions and conclusions were not grounded in any existing

theory of sport behaviour. Researchers (e.g., Connaughton & Hanton, 2009; Gucciardi

et al., 2009a) question the elite nature of the sample, the vagueness of the wording and

meanings ascribed to the identified components, as well as the research methodology.

More recent research does not rely only on a qualitative approach to mental toughness.

Quantitative approaches use psychometric inventories to study associations with

hypothesised key mental toughness correlates (for reviews see, Connaughton &

Hanton, 2009; Gucciardi et al., 2009a).

Definitions and attributes of mental toughness

Loehr (1986) was the first expert to present a theoretical underpinning of mental

toughness in sport. He defined mentally tough performers as disciplined thinkers who

remain composed, unperturbed and energized regardless of competitive stress. They

are able to do this because they can trigger the flow of positive energy under adverse

conditions. Loehr (1986) proposed seven fundamental attributes of mental toughness:

self-confidence, negative energy control, attention control, visualisation and imagery

control, motivation, positive energy and attitude control. Loehr (1986) developed the

Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI) to assess these aspects of an athlete’s

mental toughness. This inventory enjoys intuitive appeal as a measure of mental

toughness in sport (Crust, 2008).

Jones et al. (2002) lay a theoretical foundation for the understanding of the concept of

mental toughness in a qualitative approach using the context of Kelly’s (1955)

personality-construct theory. This theory underscores the important nature of an

individual’s motivation to appreciate, interpret, anticipate and control his/her experience

of the world in order to deal effectively with it. Jones et al. (2002: 209) defined mental

toughness as “having the natural or developed psychological edge that enables you to


10

generally cope better than your opponents with the many demands (competition,

training, lifestyle) that sport places on a performer and specifically, be more consistent

and better than your opponents in remaining determined, focused, confident, and in

control under pressure.”

Jones et al. (2002) proposed 12 mental toughness characteristics ranked in order of

their relevance:

1. Having an unshakable self-belief in one’s ability to achieve competition

goals.

2. Recovering from performance set-backs with an increased determination

to succeed.

3. Having an unshakable self-belief that one possesses unique qualities and

abilities that make one better than one’s opponents.

4. Having an insatiable desire and internalised motive to succeed.

5. Remaining fully focused on the task at hand in the face of competition-

specific distractions.

6. Regaining psychological control following unexpected, uncontrollable

competition-specific events.

7. Pushing back the boundaries of physical and emotional pain, whilst still

maintaining technique and effort under distress (in training and

competition).

8. Accepting that competition anxiety is inevitable and knowing that one can

cope with it.

9. Thriving on the pressure of competition.

10. Not being adversely affected by another competitor’s good or poor

performances.

11. Remaining fully-focused in the face of personal life distractions.

12. Switching one’s focus on and off as required by circumstances.


11

Jones et al.’s (2002) proposed outcome-based definition of mental toughness suggest

that progressive research that seeks to evaluate their definition with another, generated

by a population with a slightly different outlook on outcomes, such as ultra-elite athletes,

would provide further insight into what mental toughness entails. However, Middleton et

al. (2004a) have criticised Jones et al.’s (2002) definition for describing what a mentally

tough performer can do rather than what mental toughness actually is.

Clough et al. (2002) also attempted to define and operationalise mental toughness.

They tried to reconcile the distinctiveness of theoretical research and applied practice in

the study of mental toughness by incorporating the judgement of elite athletes and

coaches to gain insight into the applied perspective of mental toughness.

Clough et al.’s (2002) conceptualisation of mental toughness in sport was drawn from

the theoretical works of Kobasa (1979) and Kobasa et al. (1982) within the field of

health psychology. Clough and his co-workers incorporated the related concept of

hardiness (i.e., commitment, control, and challenge) into a more sport-specific research

setting, whilst contending that hardiness does not fully capture the distinctive nature of

the cognitive, as well as the physiological demands of competitive sports. This resulted

in the addition of a confidence dimension in proposing their 4C-conceptualisation of

mental toughness.

Clough et al. (2002) integrated their own experience in applied sport psychology with

the perspectives obtained from elite athletes and coaches in order to arrive at an

outlook on mental toughness. They defined mental toughness to reflect the attributes

that mentally tough individuals possess (Clough et al., 2002: 38):

Mentally tough individuals tend to be sociable and outgoing as

they are able to remain calm and relaxed. They are competitive in

many situations and have lower anxiety levels than others. With a

high sense of self-belief and an unshakable faith they are able to

control their own destiny. These individuals can remain relatively

unaffected by competition or adversity.


12

There have been numerous reviews that support Clough et al.’s (2002)

conceptualisation of mental toughness. This is probably due to the availability of a

measuring tool developed to measure the four key components outlined in their model.

However, there has also been criticism of Clough et al.’s (2002) work. Specifically, their

concepts of mental toughness are criticised as being founded on a theoretical

framework of a hypothesised-related construct (with no in-depth rationale for drawing on

hardiness theory) and use of a sample that is not sport-based. This gives rise to doubt

about the applicability of their model in sport (Gucciardi et al., 2009a).

Middleton et al. (2004a; 2004b) generated the components of their conceptualisation

and definition of mental toughness from the perspectives and experiences of 33 elite

athletes and coaches from diverse sporting backgrounds. They defined mental

toughness as “an unshakeable perseverance and conviction toward a common goal

despite pressure or adversity” (Middleton et al., 2004b: 6). Middleton et al. (2004a)

affirmed the often-held assertion of the concept of mental toughness as being

multidimensional. They indicated that they consider an athlete as being mentally tough

when he/she possesses at least some of the 12 attributes of mental toughness outlined

in their study. These include: self-efficacy, potential, mental self-concept, task

familiarity, value, personal best, goal commitment, perseverance, task focus, positivity,

stress minimisation, and positive comparisons. Their view of mental toughness defines

the concept rather than describe what a mentally tough performer can do. Additionally,

Middleton et al. (2004b) contended that their model of mental toughness transcends

beyond the application within sports settings. Crust (2007) concurs with this assertion

arguing that it is theoretically intricate to phantom mental toughness within a sport

context only. Mental toughness generally enhances an individual’s ability to cope

effectively with stress, challenges, adversity and maintaining focus in everyday life.

A further attempt to investigate the definition and characteristics of mental toughness

was conducted by Bull et al. (2005). They suggested that different aspects of a sport

situation dictate the concept and definition of mental toughness relevant to that

environment. To test this assertion they investigated mental toughness within the

context of cricket, by sampling 12 players considered to be England’s mentally toughest


13

cricketers. The methodology for obtaining participants’ perspectives was initiated with a

self-managed focus-group discussion among the researchers. This enabled them to

draft a framework to conduct the participants’ interviews focusing on various intricate

dynamics that influence the development and maintenance of a “winning mind”.

The results of the qualitative interviews were categorised into global themes. For

instance: self-belief, robust and resilient confidence, thriving on competition, dedication

and commitment, self-focus, ability to keep perspective, self-reflection. These were then

subcategorised into five general dimensions which entail: developmental factors,

personal responsibility, dedication and commitment, belief, and coping with pressure.

Contrary to other similar studies, Bull et al. (2005) did not present any definition of

mental toughness. Their proposed global themes show some similarities with the

components and attributes presented by Jones and colleagues (2002). Some of the

overarching themes that are mutual to both studies are: self-belief, desire/motivation,

overcoming adversity, maintaining focus and dealing with pain/hardships. With this

observation, Bull et al. (2005) concluded that the similarities existing in both studies give

credence to the consistency of mental toughness attributes. There were, however,

subtle observable differences between the two studies partly due to the different

contexts. For example, Bull et al. (2005) discovered an attribute of “competitiveness

with self and others” that concurs with Jones et al.’s (2002) definition of mental

toughness, but not explicitly included in their identified attributes of mental toughness.

Bull et al. (2005) acknowledge this as a positive addition to advance an understanding

of the nature of mental toughness.

In addition to previous definitions of mental toughness, Thelwell et al.’s (2005) research

on mental toughness was geared towards examining the definition and characteristics

of mental toughness specifically within a soccer context. These researchers believed

that, exploring the concept of mental toughness within soccer might lead to different

outcomes. They employed the same sampling procedure as Jones et al. (2002) and

enlisted athletes who competed at the international level. Their findings affirmed the

validity of the definition and characteristics of mental toughness proposed by Jones et

al. (2002).


14

Thelwell et al. (2005: 328) subsequently proposed the following definition:

Mental toughness is having the natural or developed psychological

edge that enables you to: Always cope better than your opponents

with the many demands (competition, training, and lifestyle) that

soccer places on the performer and specifically, be more

consistent and better than your opponents in remaining

determined, focused, confident, and in control under pressure.

The following characteristics emanated from this study and are presented in order of

importance:

1. Having total self-belief at all times that one will achieve success.

2. Wanting the ball at all times (when playing well and not so well).

3. Having the ability to react to situations positively.

4. Having the ability to hang on and be calm under pressure.

5. Knowing what it takes to grind oneself out of trouble.

6. Having the ability to ignore distractions and remain focused.

7. Controlling emotions throughout performance.

8. Having a presence that affects opponents.

9. Having everything outside of the game under control.

10. Enjoying the pressure associated with performance.

Accordingly, the attributes of mentally tough soccer players as reported by Thelwell et

al. (2005) bear close resemblance to those suggested by Jones et al. (2002). This

reiterates the need for soccer players to have a resilient character, an unruffled self-

belief, a mind-set that allows them to be rational, meticulous and focused to deal with

the dynamic demands of soccer at all times. Thelwell et al. (2005) concluded that the

wording of their definition and characterisation of mental toughness might have been

different from that of Jones et al. (2002), but nevertheless project the same essential

meaning. They also point out that the portrayal of an image of being mentally tough


15

creates a sense of authority which might actually intimidate and affect opponents’

performance. From these results it can be deduced that when mental toughness is

contextualised within specific sports, it becomes apparent that some characteristics of

mental toughness are exclusive to that sport. This is in line with Gucciardi et al.’s (2008)

assertion that mental toughness attributes might be sport-specific.

The comparative comments cited in both Jones et al.’s (2002) and Thelwell et al.’s

(2005) definition of mental toughness does not distinctively capture its essence.

Referring to being “generally better than one’s opponent” might imply that the effect of

mental toughness is dependent on the strength/ability of the opponent. Andersen (2011)

argues that the tenets of mental toughness portrayed in the definition of Jones et al.

(2002) essentially takes mental toughness out of the control of the performer into the

hands of the opponent, thus making the definition and operationalisation of mental

toughness other-dependent.

Another advancement of knowledge about mental toughness is the work of Jones et al.

(2007) which extends beyond self-belief as the core of known attributes of mental

toughness. Consistent with their original definition which highlighted an outcome nature

of mental toughness, they sampled athletes, coaches and sport psychologists who were

successful in their careers. Using the same methodology as in their earlier research,

they addressed three matters: the definition of mental toughness, characteristics, and

frameworks for mental toughness attributes. Their findings substantiated their earlier

definition of mental toughness (Jones et al., 2002). It contains two components, general

and specific which concur with previous studies. They firstly highlighted the general

ability to cope with the different demands of sport on a personal level. Secondly, the

definition acknowledges the outcome nature and relative nature of mental toughness

which requires the use of superior psychological strategies and mental skills. Jones and

his co-workers emphasised that the two components of the definition must not be

analysed separately, because mental toughness cannot be implemented by merely

using superior mental “tactics” in an isolated manner.

Jones et al. (2007) identified 30 attributes associated with mental toughness, for

example: an unshakeable self-belief, inner arrogance of believing you can achieve


16

anything, belief in overcoming obstacles, not being swayed by short-term gains, and

remaining in control. The authors streamlined the comprehensive characteristics of

mental toughness into 13 subcategories (e.g., belief, focus, using long-terms goals as

the source of motivation, control of the training environment, and pushing yourself to the

limit, handling failure, handling success). These subcategories were incorporated into a

framework of four dimensions. These are: attitude/mindset, training, competition, post-

competition.

Incorporating the conceptual underpinnings of the subcomponents presented by Jones

et al. (2007) into a framework of more sport-specific characteristics (e.g., Thelwell et al.,

2005) may advance knowledge for more adaptable attributes which may apply in

different sporting contexts.

The most recent effort to advance knowledge on the attributes of mental toughness is

the study by Gucciardi et al. (2008). They constructed an interview guide grounded on

the personal construct psychology framework of Kelly (1955) and then sampled elite

Australian football coaches’ views, experiences, meanings, and perceptions of mental

toughness. The coaches were further required to list the opposites of each identified

attribute. They also had to rank the attributes in decreasing order of importance and

identify situations that necessitate such attributes. Gucciardi and his co-workers defined

mental toughness in Australian football as “a collection of values, attitudes, behaviours,

and emotions that enables you to persevere and overcome any obstacle, adversity or

pressure experienced, but also to maintain concentration and motivation when things

are going well to consistently achieve your goals” (Gucciardi et al., 2008: 218).

The authors developed a grounded theory of mental toughness that entails the

interaction of three components deemed critical in the mental toughness in Australian

football: characteristics, situations and behaviours. These components encompass 11

bipolar constructs of which seven were consistent with attributes forwarded by Jones et

al. (2002): self-belief vs. self-doubt; self-motivated vs. extrinsically or unmotivated;

tough attitude vs. weak attitude; concentration/focus vs. distractible/unfocused;

resilience vs. fragile mindset; handling pressure vs. anxious and panicky; work ethic vs.

lazy. Four other attributes were unique to this sample: personal values vs. poor integrity


17

and philosophy; emotional intelligence vs. emotionally immaturity; sport intelligence vs.

lack of sport knowledge; physical toughness vs. weak sense of toughness. According to

Gucciardi et al. (2008), the situational dimension captured in this research alludes to

those events, both internal and external causing varying degrees of mental toughness

(e.g., injury, fatigue). The behaviours include overt actions of mentally tough footballers

in situations demanding mental toughness (such as consistent performances, and

superior decision making).

Gucciardi et al.’s (2008) research differs from previous research in that it goes beyond

the definition and attributes of mental toughness and draws attention to the negative

attributes perceived as mental weakness and highlighting situations influencing such

behaviour. The authors concluded that mental toughness is a multidimensional

construct with sport-specific dimensions. They suggest that knowledge about mental

toughness will be gained from further studies with athletes from different sport codes.

From the different definitions and conceptualisations outlined, it is appropriate to

assume that mental toughness entails a complexity of issues regarding its variables and

the breadth of its frameworks. These constructs are shaped by the sporting context of

the participants under investigation. In going forward, the challenge for researchers will

be to assimilate the proposed frameworks and concepts in a coherent manner based on

a theoretically grounded perspective.

Development and maintenance of mental toughness

With a great deal of literature on the conceptualisation, definition and attributes of

mental toughness, the issue that arises is the development of mental toughness –

bridging the gap between research and practice. Specifically, there is uncertainty about

mental toughness: is it an innate personality characteristic or can it be nurtured and

developed through training? In the related area of talent identification, Gould et al.

(2002) acknowledged the existence of a dichotomy between “developed” versus

“innate” characteristics. Additionally, Ericsson (1996) suggested that consistent practice

and training are vital mechanisms for talent development. However, Howe (1998)

argued that innate characteristics are imperative in talent development. Gordon and


18

Sridhar (2005) proposed that some aspects of mental toughness are gained through

social experiences, while acknowledging that other aspects could be taught. With a lack

of consensus on the issue of “nature” versus “nurture”, the debate is bound to continue

(Crust, 2007). Moreover, the development of mental toughness may be specific to the

framework to which the construct applies. In effect, the framework for conceptualising

the development of programmes aimed at enhancing mental toughness may be

improved by considering the specificity of the sport context and the dynamics of a

particular competitive environment.

Bull et al. (2005) were among the first researchers to conduct a study to highlight the

factors perceived to influence the development of mental toughness. They proposed

that certain extraneous factors are influential in the advancement of mental toughness.

These factors were listed as environmental influences which serve as the basis for the

progression of other identified tiers (e.g., character, attitude, and thinking) in the

systematic maturation of mental toughness. Environmental influences include the

performer’s childhood background, upbringing, and subsequent exposure to unfamiliar

circumstances and environments. Such experiences supposedly create a challenging

environment that acclimatises the athlete (both mentally and physically) to survive

setbacks and cope with adverse situations. It is believed that an exposure to challenges

builds a tough character, attitude, and thinking that facilitate independence,

responsibility, self-reflection, and resilient confidence – that form part of overall mental

toughness. Bull et al. (2005) state that a combination of tough character and tough

thinking through environmental challenges creates a “winning mind”. They are of the

opinion that the unpredictable nature of the environment and its concomitant challenges

have a stronger effect on the development of mental toughness than intentionally

exposing athletes to situationally-induced challenges.

Connaughton et al. (2008) conducted an investigation with the primary focus on the

development of mental toughness in different sport contexts. They interviewed seven

athletes with in-depth knowledge of the specific underlying meanings of Jones et al.’s

(2002) study to elicit their perception of how the 12 attributes of mental toughness

identified in the Jones et al.’s (2002) study were developed and maintained at elite


19

competitive level. Their findings revealed fundamental mechanisms that operate in

unison to facilitate the development of mental toughness (e.g., motivational climate, key

social facilitators, and a strong intrinsic motivation to succeed). They concluded that

certain aspects of the identified attributes in the Jones et al. (2002) study develop

systematically and become prominent in one of the three distinct stages in an athlete’s

career – early, middle, and later years.

The early phase contends with the moulding of the athlete’s self-worth and developing

an insatiable desire to excel, usually through effective leadership and vicarious

experiences.

The progression and maturation of these attributes carry over into the middle phase of

the athlete’s career where he/she is confronted with challenges, competitive setbacks,

anxiety, and pressure situations. The exposure to such experience triggers strong

affective responses (e.g., a strong determination to succeed, accepting success and

failures, and competitive rivalry). This strengthens motivation by providing challenging

goals and achievement expectations.

The final phase involves the growth, maturation and proficiency in handling and

implementing the attributes gained through the years in specific competitive situations

with ease: for instance switching focus on and off, not being affected by distractions and

regaining psychological control.

Connaughton et al. (2008) further highlighted the importance of three key mechanisms

facilitating mental toughness development and maintenance: an insatiable desire and

motivation to succeed, a strong social support network, and the use of basic as well as

advanced psychological skills. They surmised that the development of mental

toughness is dependent on the fact that the attributes do not operate in isolation, but

work in harmony with one another to achieve a holistic effect of mental toughness.

While Connaughton et al.’s (2008) effort is heralded as an advancement of insight into

the development of mental toughness, through the entire career of an athlete; it was

based on the perceptions of elite athletes only. Also, the extent to which the attributes

developed within each career stage was not investigated (Connaughton et al., 2011).


20

Gucciardi et al. (2009e) used Australian football training programmes to uncover

strategies and mechanisms which coaches incorporate in the development of mental

toughness. They suggested that such training programmes could influence the

development of mental toughness in a debilitative or facilitative manner.

Wyllemann and Lavallee (2004) also recognised that coaches play a pivotal role in the

psycho-social development of athletes. Based on the responses from the coaches,

Gucciardi et al. (2009e) came up with the following mechanisms that influence the

development of mental toughness: early childhood experiences (emotional support and

encouragement); coach–athlete relationship (e.g., open lines of communication);

coaching philosophy (holistic development of athletes’ skills and social and personal

development); training environment (creating a challenging environment both on and off

the field); specific strategies for improving three characteristics including: personal

values, concentration and focus, and ability to handle pressure (i.e., using drills and

training that help players develop an awareness and understanding of the game). In

addition, the concept of negative football experiences, letting the desire for success

overrule the need for individual player development, and over-emphasis on players’

weaknesses were identified as hindrance to optimal development of mental toughness.

The coaches further emphasised the athletes’ childhood background experiences as

being salient in moulding mental toughness. This, however, transforms into a sport-

specific form of mental toughness as athletes progress and mature in a specific sport.

Gucciardi et al. (2009e) believe that a healthy coach-athlete relationship enhances the

development of a key mental toughness characteristic – emotional intelligence. They

not only addressed the developmental process involved in mental toughness but also

how coaches cultivate the mechanisms embedded in such development: for instance,

by exposing footballers to tough adverse situations to imprint some form of familiarity in

the players’ minds. This helps players to gain experience in adverse situations, thereby

developing ways to deal with and even thrive in such conditions when competing.

Gucciardi et al.’s (2009e) study was confined to mental toughness development within

the Australian football and therefore, cannot be generalized to all sport codes.


21

The literature shows that the development of each key mental toughness attribute

requires different strategies and mechanisms for its maturation. Also stemming from the

developmental perspective of mental toughness is the understanding that mental

toughness is not an enduring construct but might fluctuate in the respective phases of

an athlete’s career.

Measurement of mental toughness

In the domain of sport the recognition and nurturing of mentally tough athletes have

become a prime focus for many teams. Consequently a need arises for

psychometrically-sound instruments to assess mental toughness. Some researchers

have focussed on developing questionnaires to measure mental toughness for specific

sport codes (e.g., Gucciardi et al., 2009b; Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009) and for sport in

general (e.g., Clough et al., 2002; Golby et al., 2007). An obvious downside to the sport-

specific approach is its limited usefulness (e.g., the Australian Football Mental

Toughness Inventory and the Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory).

It is important to note that no soccer-specific measure of mental toughness has been

developed. Therefore, the following discussion will focus mainly on general

measurement of mental toughness.

The Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI)

The PPI (Loehr, 1986) has been used quite extensively in early research (e.g., Shin et

al., 1993; Lee et al., 1994; Golby et al., 2003; Golby & Sheard, 2004) as a general

measurement of sport mental toughness. The PPI was developed to reflect seven

psychological factors, namely: self-confidence, attention control, positive energy,

negative energy, motivation, attitude control, and visual and imagery control. The PPI

exhibits an intuitively engaging conceptualisation of mental toughness that is fairly

consistent with more recent qualitative research (Crust, 2008).

Researchers such as Golby et al. (2007) and Gucciardi (2012) have criticized the PPI

alluding to its lack of conceptual underpinnings of the seven-factor model (e.g.,

construct definition), lack of information on the theoretical background of item

development, and scant psychometric data to support its reliability and validity.


22

Furthermore, Middleton et al. (2004a) have questioned the factorial validity of the PPI.

In addition, the PPI has been shown to contain insufficient discriminative power and

only measures distinct attributes of mental skills (Golby et al., 2003; Middleton et al.,

2004a). Gucciardi (2012) is of the opinion that the PPI should not be used in either

research or applied practice settings.

The Mental Toughness Questionnaire-48 (MTQ-48)

Clough et al. (2002) presented what is deemed a ground-breaking scientifically rigorous

measure of mental toughness. They adopted the hardiness theory with its tenets (i.e.

commitment, control and challenge – 3Cs) to conceptualise mental toughness.

Emanating from their qualitative interviews, the authors redefined their

conceptualisation of mental toughness from hardiness by adding the fourth component

of “confidence” to propose a 4C-model. These components include, challenge (the

extent to which an individual interprets problems as opportunities for self-development);

commitment (strong involvement in what one is doing); emotional control (keeping

anxiety in check); life control (feeling and acting as if one is influential); confidence in

abilities (a strong sense of self-belief and less dependency on external validation); and

interpersonal confidence (being assertive when interacting with others).

Clough et al. (2002) formulated statements to capture the concepts of the 4Cs with 48

items. Despite the authors’ failure to present a factor analysis to validate their

hypothesised four-factor model, an internal consistency estimate of α = .90 was

reported as overall mental toughness, giving credence to the reliability of the MTQ-48.

Moreover the factor structure identified in their research is in line with key attributes

prominent in literature on mental toughness (Gucciardi et al., 2011). There is also

evidence to support the validity and reliability of the MTQ-48. For example Crust and

Clough’s (2005) work supported the validity when they found significant correlations

between the MTQ-48 scores and pain tolerance. Furthermore, Nicholls et al. (2009)

found significant relationships between the MTQ-48 scores, and optimism, and coping

skills. Despite such support for the MTQ-48 as a measure of mental toughness, it is not

free from criticism. Sheard et al. (2009) raised concerns about its conceptual basis and

lack of independent scrutiny of the factor structure. Crust (2007) highlighted the MTQ-


23

48’s limitation of not satisfying the different phases of statistical processes essential in

structuring and validating a scientifically sound measuring instrument. In addition,

Andersen (2011) contends that the 4C-model is simply hardiness “repacked” as

something new.

The Mental Toughness Inventory (MTI)

The MTI (Middleton et al., 2004a) is a 67-item self-report instrument purported to

measure 12 attributes of mental toughness as well as a global measure of mental

toughness, namely: self-efficacy, potential, mental self-concept, task familiarity,

personal best, value, goal commitment, perseverance, task-specific attention, stress

minimization, positivity, and positive comparison. The MTI was later revised and

reduced to 36 items.

There is support for the validity of the revised MTI with Cronbach α’s ranging from 0.84

to 0.94 among the sample of elite athletes. The MTI is regarded to be grounded on a

solid theoretical and applied base and has been examine through a construct validity

framework. However, the limitations of the MTI include the use of participants from a

single elite sport high school (Crust, 2007). Moreover, Crust (2007) suggested that,

since the key correlates employed in the development of the MTI was principally based

on the reliance of self-report measures (i.e. flow, self-concept) additional analysis is

warranted to further test the construct validity of the MTI.

The Psychological Performance Inventory-Alternative (PPI-A)

Golby et al. (2007) failed to find support for the hypothesised seven-factor structure of

Loehr’s (1986) PPI. A principal components analysis (PCA) revealed the presence of 14

higher-order general mental toughness elements. These were classified into four

components: determination, self-belief, positive cognition, and visualization (Golby et

al., 2007). Golby and his co-workers labelled the amended and abridged version, the

Psychological Performance Inventory-Alternative (PPI-A). They further examined the

data by means of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the factorial validity of

the 14-item hierarchical model. The CFA provided support for its hypothesised

structure.


24

Satisfactory psychometric values have been found for the PPI-A, including internal

reliability coefficients of 0.75 (Sheard, 2009). But, correlations between the PPI-A

subscales and hardiness indicate a low to moderate relationship (r = 0.06 to 0.55).

Despite some strong psychometric properties of the scale, Marsh (1997) warned

against using the same sample to both identify (PCA) and confirm the factor structure

(CFA). This could count against the PPI-A as a valid measuring instrument. There

appears to be a need for cross validation of the hypothesised measurement model with

a different sample to address issues pertaining to sample-specific chance relationships

in the original set of data. Notwithstanding its limitations, item brevity is an important

practical strength of the PPI-A (Gucciardi, 2012).

The Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ)

The SMTQ (Sheard et al., 2009) assess global mental toughness encompassing three

factors: (1) confidence (which measures athlete’s belief in their own abilities to achieve

goals and be better than their opponents); (2) constancy (implying determination,

personal responsibility, an unrelenting attitude and the ability to concentrate; and (3)

control (relating to the perception that one is personally influential and can bring about

desired outcomes with special emphasis on controlling emotions). Sheard et al. (2009)

give credence to the SMTQ exhibiting satisfactory psychometric properties with

adequate validity and discriminating power. Gucciardi and Gordon (2011) observed that,

the application of a construct validation approach in the development and evaluation of

the SMTQ was a key methodological strength that must be encouraged in the

development of questionnaires based on solid theoretical grounding. A more detailed

discussion of the SMTQ is presented in Chapter Three.

From the different instruments discussed, there seems to be issues and concerns with

an emphasis on the psychometric inconsistencies and some constructs not being based

on sound theoretical underpinnings. As construct validation is an ongoing process

(Marsh, 1997, 2002), meticulous effort in conceptual development and statistical

examination of the discussed instruments are warranted. Therefore, much work is still

needed to clarify the inconsistencies and reach consensus about the definition,

conceptualisation, operationalisation and measurement of mental toughness.


25

Summary

Mental toughness has been highlighted as a decisive factor in athletic success (Bull et

al., 2005; Crust & Clough, 2005). However, there sometimes is a lack of consensus

about the relationship between mental toughness and performance. For example, some

researchers (e.g., Gucciardi et al., 2008) support the notion that mental toughness can

transform physically talented athletes into great athletes. Other experts adopt a more

cautionary approach by emphasizing that success in sport can be achieved through

consistent effort and practice (Ericsson, 1996). Athletes who are endowed with

exceptional physical, morphological and psychological attributes obviously have a head

start (Crust, 2008).

Notwithstanding some negative observations, mental toughness is an attribute

associated with excellence. Smith and Smoll (1989) regard mental toughness as a

highly prized characteristic in sport. They describe it as the ability to deal with stress

and adversity in such a manner that performance does not suffer under conditions that

place high physical and psychological constraints on the performer. Also, Loehr (1995:

127) argues that “mental toughness is not a substitute for well-grounded strokes in

athleticism or top physical condition; but when most other things are equal, the mentally

tough performer and the team that practices mental toughness will succeed.”

Additionally, mental toughness has been found to facilitate the formulation of good

imagery and coping strategies in sport performance (Omar-Fauzee et al., 2009). Thus,

mentally tough athletes possess the psychological edge to challenge their ability and

thrive in both positively and negatively interpreted challenges and adversities (Coulter et

al., 2010).

There has not been any research on the direct link between mental toughness and

performance outcome. However, the associated relationship between mental toughness

and other psychological skills related to performance excellence have been noted. The

literature and anecdotal reports propose that motivation is particularly important to a

mentally tough performer since this attribute is used to view setbacks as a source of

increased determination, to recover from failure and to develop an intense desire to

function optimally and be the best one could be (Jones et al., 2002, 2007). Moreover,


26

mental toughness helps to develop arousal control to deal effectively with both the

externally derived pressures of competition and internally generated anxiety by focusing

on relevant cues during competition. Thus putting the definition of mental toughness by

Jones et al. (2002) into perspective: it enables the athlete to exhibit a high level of ability

to control motivation, attention, confidence and stress – which are all relevant factors in

performance excellence.

Nicholls et al. (2008) reported that athletes who obtained high scores with regard to

mental toughness are proficient in the use of certain psychological skills. The next

section will focus on the various psychological skills and strategies believed to be

important in sport performance.

Psychological dimensions/skills

In the on-going search for performance excellence, coaches and athletes remain

interested in the “power” of the mind (mental skills) to achieve superior athletic

performance. The importance of the psychological dimensions associated with

performance is well documented (Morgan, 1984; Morgan et al., 1988; Weinberg &

Gould, 2011). To this extend, interventions by sport psychology practitioners should be

based on accepted theories and research within this domain (Hardy et al., 1996;

Murphy & Tammen, 1998).

The following section deals with the psychological skills, attributes, and topics that are

prominent in the literature:

Motivation

The role of motivation is regularly singled out as one of the factors that influence

performance (Roberts, 1993; Theodorakis & Gargalianos, 2003). The nature of

motivation has been described in terms of the direction, intensity, and persistence of

one’s actions (Sage, 1977). In essence motivation activates an athlete’s action towards

a goal. Weinberg and Gould (2011) underscored motivation as being driven by

individual characteristics (e.g., personal needs, goals and behaviour), situational

dynamics of the competitive environment as well as the interaction between the


27

individual characteristics and the environmental situation. In other words, motivation is

concerned with why people behave in a certain manner and how situational dynamics

influence a particular course of action.

The incorporation of the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991) into

the motivational framework is regarded as an advancement of an understanding of an

athlete’s motivation in sport (Vallerand et al., 1987; Fortier et al., 1995; Pelletier et al.,

1995). The self-determination theory states that an individual has a need to feel self-

determined and competent when dealing with a competitive environment. According to

Deci and Ryan (1985, 1995), self-determination refers to the freedom to choose from

available options (e.g., to participate in sport). Their theory also emphasises that people

are motivated by the intrinsic benefits involved in certain activities (e.g., competing in

sport). Gill and Williams (2008) affirmed the self-determination analogy in a study that

concluded that novices reported a number of intrinsic motives for sport participation

including skill development, the demonstration of competence, challenge, and

excitement. This focus on the intrinsic rewards of certain behaviours creates a sense of

competence in one’s interactions and dealings with the environment (Chantal et al.,

1996). Moreover, the competence theory highlights an athlete’s understanding of control

(feeling control over the learning, acquisition and execution of skills) and self-evaluation

of worth, which engender feelings of motivation to persist in the achievement of set

objectives (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).

Wong and Bridges (1995) investigated the viability of this model by examining the

perceived competence and control, trait anxiety, motivation and various coaching

behaviours of 108 youth soccer players and their coaches. Their findings revealed that

trait anxiety and coaching behaviours predicted perceived competence and control

which in turn influenced players’ motivational levels. This implies that feelings of

competence and control gained through mastery of skills serve as critical determinants

of motivated behaviour.

It is suggested that the need for self-determination and competence in the competitive

sport environment could lead to different types of motivation: intrinsic motivation,

extrinsic motivation, and amotivation (Vallerand & O’Connor, 1989; Weinberg & Gould,


28

2011). Intrinsic motivation refers to the motivation that is characterised by the pleasure,

satisfaction and enjoyment derived from the task itself and exists within the individual

rather than relying on the external pressure or incentives. Additionally, it is often inferred

that intrinsic motivation is superior to extrinsic motivation as it leads to greater effort and

persistence (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). Seifriz et al. (1992) proposed that, a perceived

mastery-oriented climate (i.e., task orientation) is associated with personal improvement

and greater intrinsic interest which usually leads to improved performance. Mallet and

Hanrahan (2004) study on sustained motivation of elite athletes, found that elite

performers were primarily driven by personal goals and achievement rather than

financial rewards and accolades.

Extrinsic motivation involves doing something to gain externally desirable rewards (e.g.,

status, trophies, medals, money). The activity is a means to an end (reward).

Supporters of extrinsic motivation contend that rewards generate motivation, learning,

and increase the desire to persist in an activity (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). In essence,

extrinsic motivation places the emphasis on the reward rather than on the inherent

satisfaction derived from a specific activity.

Amotivation entails an absence of any form of motivation and a lack of planned

contingencies relating to actions and the ensuing outcomes (Chantal et al., 1996). This

becomes apparent when an athlete experiences an overwhelming feeling of

incompetence and lack of control. The athlete is neither intrinsically nor extrinsically

motivated and thus feels he/she has no compelling reason to train or compete (Chantal

et al., 1996).

These affective states do not influence motivation directly, but rather the perceived

levels of competence that create positive emotions (e.g. enjoyment, pride) and/or

negative connotations (e.g., anxiety, shame) which in turn influence motivation (Weiss,

1993). The pursuit of mastery serves as motivation with the primary focus of attaining

satisfaction from the acquisition and development of skills (Roberts et al., 1998).

Athletes with such disposition tend to exhibit persistence and increased effort when

confronted with major setbacks (Xiang & Lee, 2002).


29

Correspondingly, motivation and successful performance have been espoused as not

just delineated or confined to the final outcome or the pursuit of excellence, but also

reflect the psychological process of accomplishing the set objectives. A study by Weiss

(1993) highlighted the relationship between perceived competence and motivation. She

found that, competence improves motivation, resulting in positive achievement

behaviours and sustained effort.

Goal setting

Goal setting is generally used as a motivational tool for athletes to achieve higher

proficiency in tasks and regulation of their actions (Silva & Weinberg, 1984). This is

often achieved through a comparison of personal standards against which performance

is measured (Weinberg, 1996). Goal setting provides a sense of focus and direction,

increases effort and intensity, and promotes the development of relevant strategies to

enhance performance (Harris, 1985; Morris & Summers, 1995). The goal setting

process drives and sustains a particular level of proficiency, which is deemed to provide

a positive source of efficacy information to athletes (Bandura, 1977; Weinberg, 1996).

The pursuit of goals can be categorised into a performance-based goal orientation and

an outcome-based goal orientation, each with a different structure (Burton & Naylor,

2002). Athletes with a performance-based goal orientation generally exhibit a positive

and optimistic outlook. They focus on learning, improving and mastering of skills. They

have confidence in their ability to produce the effort that is required to learn and become

proficient performers. In contrast, those with a proclivity of an outcome-based goal

orientation are more inclined to focus on how other people judge them (social appraisal)

or how they are performing in relation to others than on personal development (learning

or overcoming challenges) (Burton & Naylor, 2002).

The positive effect of goal setting in the industrial sector (Locke & Latham, 1990) as well

as in sport is well documented (Kyllo & Landers, 1995; Burton et al., 2001), which have

given credence to its encompassing effects as being critical to performance

enhancement strategies. There is general consensus in sport from the results

emanating from more than 500 studies on goal setting (e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990;


30

Burton, 1992, 1993; Weinberg, 1994; Burton et al., 2001; Burton & Naylor, 2002)

alluding to the fact that, specific and difficult goals prompt better performance than

vague, “do your best” or “no goals”. These findings were consistent irrespective of the

type of task, the situation dynamics or settings in which the goals were set, the way

performance was measured, as well as the age, ability and motivation of the

participants. Burton et al. (2001) supported earlier assertions that the perceived

effectiveness of goal setting in sport is as effective as in business settings. They

reported that out of the 56 published goal setting research studies in a sport and

exercise context, 44 studies produced moderate to strong goal setting effects on sport

performance. In addition, studies by Filby et al. (1999) and Gould (2005) reinforced goal

setting as highly effective in enhancing performance and shaping positive behaviour.

Research by Locke and Latham (1990) revealed that group goals enhanced

performance as effectively as individual goals. Johnson et al. (1997) highlighted the

effectiveness of goal setting on team efficacy, when they observed that team goals

increased performance more than individual goals or “do your best goals”. The few

observations of the facilitative effects of team goals have been reported as either strong

or consistent (Locke et al., 1997; Paulus, 2000). Team goals provide motivation,

purpose and direction for performance of the group and also affect individual goals

positively. In effect, team goals precipitate the motivation for athletes’ synergy to

perform effectively as a group, but such goals must be congruous with the goals of the

individual team-members (Locke & Latham, 1990).

Goal setting in its own is no magic performance enhancement tool without a plan of

action. Burton et al. (2001) asserted that goal setting is more effective when a

systematic plan is formulated to guide its attainment.

Arousal regulation

The quest for consistent performance creates the need for athletes to seek strategies to

sustain optimal performance in anxiety-producing situations. An ability to manage

arousal could enable athletes to optimize performance by recognising situations that

necessitates the elevation or lowering of arousal (Zaichkowsky & Baltzell, 2001). This is


31

important because the interpretation of the perceived anxiety lays the foundation for the

athlete’s competence in mastering other psychological skills.

The literature on arousal regulation often ascribe terms interchangeably as stress,

anxiety, or arousal (activation) to describe some affective responses (both positive and

negative) that surface in a competitive environment. Weinberg and Gould (2011)

bemoan this phenomenon and recommend that a clear distinction should be made

between these related terms.

“Arousal” is a more general term than “stress” and “anxiety”. Arousal is expressed as an

activation of the mind and body leading to a condition of alertness (Sage, 1978;

Landers, 1980). It can lie somewhere on a continuum ranging from deep sleep to

extreme forms of excitement (Gould et al., 2002). “Stress”, on the other hand, is an

overall concept which encompasses a range of unpleasant emotional states such as

anxiety, depression, and anger (Smith & Smoll, 1990). Stress is an emotional response

and usually manifests when threat and increased physiological arousal are appraised

that challenge our coping abilities. In essence, stress is the result of a disproportionate

appraisal of perceived demand and perceived ability (Smith et al., 2000).

Competitive anxiety

Levitt (1980) views anxiety as a subjective feeling of apprehension or perceived threat

usually accompanied by heightened physiological arousal. Anxiety has two

components. Firstly, a cognitive dimension characterized by negative expectations such

as worry and concerns of potential consequences. Secondly, a somatic response

encompassing all aspects of physiological feelings experienced (e.g., elevated blood

pressure, muscle tension). It is important to distinguish between the two dimensions of

anxiety in relation to performance, as their origins determine their effect on performance

(Gould et al., 1984; Gould et al., 1987). Cognitive anxiety might have a positive effect on

performance if the athlete can manipulate it successfully. Conversely, cognitive anxiety

is believed to have a more devastating effect on performance than somatic anxiety if not

properly managed (Morris et al., 1981; Jones et al., 1990). Athletes with a strong

tendency to suffer from cognitive anxiety experience more debilitative performance


32

effects. This is partly due to a narrowing of the width of their attentional focus below an

optimal point, creating a “tunnelling effect”, which eliminates some task-relevant cues

needed for successful performance (Gould et al., 1984).

There have been consistent efforts over the years to understand the perceived

relationship between anxiety and performance (Woodman & Hardy, 2001). The

recognition of separate cognitive and somatic dimensions encouraged a

multidimensional approach to anxiety in sport. For example, Martens et al.’s (1990)

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) indicates a negative linear correlation

between cognitive anxiety and performance whilst an inverted-U relationship exists

between somatic anxiety and performance.

However, studies on the anxiety-performance relationship produced inconsistent

findings. According to Jones (1991), this is partly due to researchers failing to clarify

why or how anxiety affects performance. The model of directional interpretation of the

anxiety proposed by Jones (1991, 1995) has advanced knowledge on the question of

how anxiety influences performance. The direction of interpretation relates to whether

an individual perceives anxiety symptoms as being facilitative or debilitative to

performance (Jones & Swain, 1992). Conclusions drawn from a number of studies (e.g.,

Jones & Swain, 1992; Swain & Jones, 1996) show that the directional interpretation of

anxiety symptoms (facilitative or debilitative) is influenced by the mental disposition of

the athlete and variables present in the competitive environment.

Studies conducted on temporal patterns of anxiety interpretation and predisposition to

anxiety interpretation effects among elite and sub-elite athletes revealed no significant

difference between “facilitators” and “debilitators” (Jones & Swain, 1995). Elite athletes,

in contrast to sub-elite athletes reported more facilitative interpretations of both cognitive

and somatic anxiety symptoms. The elite athletes also demonstrated greater levels of

self-confidence than their sub-elite counterparts who perceived their symptoms as more

debilitative. Correspondingly, the mediating effect of self-confidence in the perceived

anxiety intensity-direction relationship influenced Jones (1995) and Jones and Hanton’s

(1996) proposition that confidence and perceptions of control facilitate the moderation

and interpretation of the observed causal effect of anxiety intensity in relation to


33

performance outcome. Emanating from such observations was their formulation of a

control model based on the earlier work of Carver and Scheier (1988) and Carver et al.

(1989). The control model hypothesised that self-confident performers espouse their

ability to assert control of their actions and the environment (which leads to facilitative

interpretations), whereas those with less control would tend to manifest a debilitative

interpretation of anxiety (Jones & Hanton, 1996). A number of empirical studies have

substantiated the predictive efficacy of this model (e.g., Jones & Hanton, 1996;

Ntoumanis & Jones 1998; Hanton et al., 2008).

Hanton and Connaughton (2002) tested the control model among swimmers and found

that factors that were construed to be under their control were interpreted as having a

positive effect on performance. On the other hand, symptoms deemed to be outside

their control were perceived to have a negative effect on performance. Self-confidence

therefore, had a moderating effect on their interpretations of anxiety symptoms.

Despite advances in explaining how anxiety influences performance, there still remains

a need for more rigorous theoretical efforts to understand the mechanisms underlying

the way in which anxiety influences performance in a particular direction. The research

of Eysenck and Calvo (1992) emphasized the role of motivation and persistent effort in

strengthening self-confidence which in turn enhances the facilitative interpretations of

anxiety symptoms increasing the probability of success.

In the context of competitive sport, the theoretical underpinnings of how and why

athletes perceive and respond to anxiety-induced situations and the underlying

strategies of how they adapt and thrive in such situations are important. This applies to

both practice (e.g., psychological skills intervention programmes) and research.

Attentional focus

In soccer one of the most important skills is the ability to respond swiftly and effectively

to the changing dynamics of the game (e.g., position of the ball, teammates, and

opponents). Focusing attention on relevant environmental cues is therefore important

for optimal performance. In essence, the ability to selectively concentrate on relevant

cues while ignoring irrelevant information separates elite athletes from average


34

competitors (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). Orlick and Partington’s (1988) study of Olympic

athletes accentuated the role of concentration in enhancing performance.

The concepts of attention and concentration are used interchangeably throughout

sports psychology literature.

Potgieter (2006) cited William James’s (1890: 403) definition of attention as “the taking

possession by the mind in clear and vivid form of one out of what seem several

simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought ... It implies withdrawal from some

things in order to deal effectively with others”.

Research has confirmed the importance of attentional focus in motor learning and

control (Wulf & Prinz, 2001; Wulf et al., 2001). There has been substantial literature

attesting to the effect of attentional focus with regard to the skill level of the performer

(Wulf & Prinz, 2001). The findings from most of these studies are in agreement that an

over-awareness of bodily movements will negatively affect performance in comparison

to a primary focus on the desired outcome of one’s movements (e.g., a target)

(Weinberg & Gould, 2011). This assumption is supported in research on elite athletes

(e.g., Gray, 2004; Castaneda & Gray, 2007), which reported that a focus on movement

execution was detrimental for performance at an elite level. In contrast, performance is

impeded in the case of novices who direct their attention away from skill execution.

Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi (1999) alluded to three levels of concentration associated

with peak performance: (a) being engrossed in the present with no thoughts about the

past or future; (b) being mentally relaxed with a high degree of concentration and

control; and (c) being in a state of exceptional awareness of both one’s body and the

external environment.

Research on diverse individual and team sports such as tennis, soccer and basketball

have acknowledged differences in eye movement patterns, with elite athletes exhibiting

different attentional focus than non-elite athletes (Moran, 1996). Memmert’s (2009)

study outlined the relevance of attentional selectivity in relation to performance by

stressing that, it is not only the longevity of the focus that counts in performance, but

also the essence ascribed to what one concentrates on enhances performance. As the


35

process of an activity is mastered with consistency and finesse in the proficiency of

delivery, an athlete can depart from more conscious control to more automatic control.

This in effect allows attention to be directed to other aspects of the game and

environmental situation (Weinberg & Gould, 2011); which has special relevance in a

sport like soccer.

Attentional models

The vast literature addressing attentional styles in sport have focused and adapted the

theoretical framework of Nideffer (1979, 1981) and Nideffer and Sagal (2001), who

identified three components of attention focus: width of attention (broad or narrow);

direction (internal or external); and the ability of the individual to shift attentional focus.

A broad attentional focus allows one to focus on numerous occurrences simultaneously.

Athletes who are good at this, possess good anticipation skills and can adapt to rapidly

changing conditions. The disadvantage of this attentional style is the possibility of being

easily distracted by irrelevant environmental stimuli.

A narrow attentional focus relates to selectively focusing on only one or two external

cues. This type of attention is recommended for focusing on a single primary target and

blocking out distractions. It is cautioned that when used inappropriately it could lead to

lack of variation and adaptability (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).

The internal attentional focus (association) is projected inwards at thoughts and

emotions. This type of attentional focus is good for focusing on body awareness, energy

management, and imagery. The disadvantage of such an attentional focus is the

tendency to become self-conscious. Such self-absorbed ego-involvement might lead to

“choking” under pressure (Potgieter, 2006; Weinberg & Gould, 2011).

A broad internal attentional style helps the athlete (or coach) to analyse strategies

based on previous experience and knowledge. When this attentional style is employed

inappropriately, it could induce cognitive interference and “paralysis by analysis” in

situations that require automatic action (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).

An important component of Nideffer’s model is the ability to shift attention. Because it is

impossible to attend to both internal and external cues simultaneously the athlete needs


36

to shift back and forth from one style to another– depending on the competitive

demands at a particular moment (Harris & Harris, 1984; Morris & Summers, 1995).

Athletes are also required to shift their focus on the broad narrow continuum depending

on the requirements of the situation. For instance a soccer player must quickly shift

attention to broad-external as he scans the field, observing the defensive alignment of

the opposing team, an open teammate to pass the ball to, or the position of the goal

keeper to strike for goal. In essence, peak performance is enhanced when athletes

maintain an attentional focus which is appropriate at a specific time during a contest.

Imagery

Imagery involves a recollection of information kept in one’s memory and reconstructing

them into meaningful images (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). These can be used to mentally

prepare for future performances. They can also be used to acquire and mentally

practise motor skills. In effect the continuous process of imagery enables the athlete to

generate a progressive sequence of interacting processes encapsulating goals,

schemata, actions, objects and effects needed for effective skill acquisition and

implementation. Imagery provides the mechanism for planning, learning and acquiring

the necessary skills in an evasive manner as if the situation and self-activity were really

happening (Feltz & Landers, 1983).

The clarity and effectiveness of imagery are enhanced when all the senses are

activated when imaging (such as vision, smell, taste, hearing and feeling) (White &

Hardy, 1998). Moreover, incorporating emotions and thoughts as well as concentration

in imagery facilitates the familiarization and control and positive interpretation of such

affective states (Gregg et al., 2005).

Apart from using all the senses to make imagery vivid, it is also recommended that the

tempo of imagery must mirror the actual duration of an action. Calmels et al. (2003)

found that this is an important factor that distinguishes between effective and less

effective imagery.

As far back as 1934, Sackett asserted that imagery equips athletes with a mental

imprint and plan for their actions; thereby making their movement more familiar and


37

automatic. The effectiveness of mental imagery in athletic performance cannot be over-

emphasized (Paivio, 1985; Driskell et al., 1994; Morris et al., 2004). The documented

effectiveness of imagery has been reflected in the frequent use of imagery reported by

athletes (Hall et al., 1990; Barr & Hall, 1992) and the inclusion of imagery in

psychological skills intervention programmes (Gould et al., 1990; Kendall et al., 1990).

Weinberg and Gould (2011) cited the work of Murphy et al. (1990) in which they

reported that 90% of Olympic athletes employ some form of imagery, with 97% of these

athletes believing that it boosted their performance. Titley (1976) and Jordet’s (2005)

studies revealed significant improvement in the performance of athletes after employing

imagery strategies in their training regimen. Moreover, Evans et al. (2004) reported

positive effects of imagery on confidence and coping with anxiety.

Studies using imagery as part of a psychological intervention programme reported

performance enhancement in sports such as basketball, golf, football and swimming.

However, this improvement cannot be attributed to imagery alone (Perry & Morris, 1995;

Weinberg & Williams, 2001). Weinberg (1981), Feltz and Landers (1983), and Martin et

al. (2001) provided empirical evidence highlighting the effectiveness of imagery in

learning and enhancing the performance of motor skills. However, this does not mean

that imagery replaces physical overt practice. It is merely a useful adjunct to real

practice.

Grouios (1992) suggested that, the effectiveness of imagery is more pronounced in

sport with strong cognitive demands such as those involving tactics and strategies.

Additionally, Vealey and Greenleaf (2001) have added that not only does imagery

facilitate the quality of athletic movement, but that it also strengthens concentration,

self-composure, and moderates the effect of anxiety and stress.

Martin et al. (1999) proposed that imagery should be performed with a specific purpose.

In other words the nature of imagery employed must match the intended specific

outcome. Therefore, it is recommended to individualize imagery intervention according

to the specific needs of athletes to maximize its effectiveness (Gregg et al., 2005).


38

There still remains a need for research to provide answers about the moderating factors

influencing the efficiency of imagery in a variety of competitive environments (White &

Hardy, 1998).

Self-confidence

The importance of self-confidence in sport cannot be over-emphasized. In a sense, self-

confidence is considered an important factor that differentiates between successful and

less successful athletes (Krane & Williams, 2006). Self-confidence involves a belief that

one can successfully execute a specific activity or skill (Vealey, 1986). Vealey (2001)

describes self-confidence as either trait-like or state-like. Trait sport-confidence is

defined as the usual belief athletes have about their ability to be successful in sport,

which essentially can be expressed as an inherent or part of an individual’s personality.

State sport-confidence is defined as the degree or belief of certainty athletes have at a

particular moment and in a particular situation about their capability to be successful.

Vealey and Knight (2002) believe that sport self-confidence is multidimensional. It

encompasses confidence about one’s ability to execute physical skills, confidence about

one’s ability to use psychological skills (e.g., imagery, self-talk), confidence to use

perceptual skills (e.g., decision making, adaptability), confidence in one’s level of

physical fitness and training states, as well as confidence in one’s learning potential or

ability. Hays et al. (2007) made a further addition to the understanding of the

multidimensional nature of self-confidence when they examined self-confidence among

elite athletes. They came up with additional dimensions such as a belief in the ability to

achieve (winning, improved performance), and belief in one’s superiority over an

opponent. This is in line with the importance of self-belief as evident throughout the

literature on mental toughness.

In competitive sports, the phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecy seems clear where

positive expectations influence the occurrence of desirable outcomes. A negative self-

fulfilling prophecy, on the other hand, is deemed a psychological barrier, where the

expectation of failure actually results in failure (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).


39

Self-confidence is therefore synonymous with a high expectancy of success. Mahoney

et al. (1987) for example, observed that successful athletes exhibited stronger and more

stable levels of self-confidence than less successful athletes. Additionally, self-

confidence initiates positive emotions, allowing athletes to remain calm and relaxed in

adverse situations. Optimal self-confidence (not under- or over-confidence) increases

effort and enhances performance (Weinberg et al., 1980).

Self-confidence also promotes positive thinking about one’s potential and ability. This

contributes to successful performance (Kendall et al., 1990; Van Raalte et al., 1994).

This type of positive thinking also applies to teams that “play to win” rather than “play

not to lose” (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). This view is in line with Feltz and Chase’s (1998)

observation that confident teams are willing to take calculated risks when competing.

Notably, in a team sport such as soccer, building collective confidence is imperative for

success (Heuze et al., 2007).

However, the importance of confidence in sport should not be seen as a remedy for

incompetence. Confidence can only propel an athlete’s perceived ability up to a point. In

fact, it is speculated that performance progresses steadily as the level of confidence

increases up to an optimal point. Beyond this point any further rise in confidence can

actually hinder performance. Performance suffers when athletes have a false sense of

confidence (i.e., over-confidence) that result in poor performance (Weinberg & Gould,

2011). Self-confidence is therefore not a guarantee for success, but it can help athletes

to cope better and even thrive in both successful and unsuccessful situations (Martens,

1987).

Psychological skills training

Psychological skills training (PST) is widely regarded as an effective way to enhance

sport performance (Williams & Krane, 2001). Vealey (1988) highlighted that PST

programmes are designed to educate and equip athletes with techniques and strategies

that can be employed to examine, monitor and adjust their thoughts and feelings to

produce psychological state that facilitate performance and build positive personality

characteristics. PST entails methodical and consistent practise of cognitive skills to


40

facilitate performance excellence and increase the enjoyment of physical activity and

sport (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). A well-constructed PST programme also bolsters

athletes’ personal lives in areas outside the sport context where many of the

psychological skills are also applicable (Tremayne & Tremayne, 2004).

PST programmes are not all the same. Some sport psychologists such as Shambrook

and Bull (1996) and Johnson et al. (2004) focused on single psychological dimension

(e.g., self-talk), while others (e.g., Thelwell & Maynard, 2003; Thelwell et al., 2006)

prefer a multi-modal PST package approach of a variety of mental skills. Some (e.g.,

Thelwell & Greenlees, 2003) go even further by incorporating physical skills in their PST

programmes.

Rogerson and Hrycaiko (2002) have argued that, research examining the effectiveness

of PST interventions in relation to specific performance skills (e.g., tackling, passing of

the ball and inter-positional play in soccer) may provide a better insight into the specific

demands of different playing positions. Birrer and Morgan (2010) also suggest that PST

should be tailored to specific psychological and physiological needs in order to facilitate

familiarity and automacity of skill execution. Accordingly, the development and

implementation of PST intervention should be systematic, goal oriented, planned,

controlled and consistently evaluated (Seiler & Stock, 1994). Weinberg and Gould

(2011) recommend that PST interventions, in order to be theoretically sound, need to be

cognisant of areas relating to behaviour modification, cognitive therapy, and rational

emotive therapy.

A number of studies have attested to the effectiveness of PST in, for example, tennis

(Daw & Burton, 1994), cricket (Spittle & Morris, 1997) and gymnastics (Kazemi et al.,

2003). Tremayne and Tremayne (2004) highlighted the effectiveness of PST

intervention programmes for young athletes. They reported that the incorporation of

psychological skills such as goal setting, imagery, relaxation and stress management

significantly improved young athletes’ physical fitness, self-confidence, and self-esteem.

Additionally, psychological skills testing before implementing a PST programme identify

the psychological strengths and weaknesses of athletes. This information should have a

bearing on the content and method of the PST intervention (Leffingwell et al., 2005).


41

The psychological skills-performance relationship

Different sports seem to require distinctively different PST programmes with specific

emphasis on the development of certain skills concomitant to the positions in the sport.

The psychological requirement for maximal efficiency in sports such golf and martial

arts, for example, are appreciably different (McCaffery & Orlick, 1989; d’Arripe-

Longeville et al., 1998). However, there are general psychological attributes inherent in

all sport that are deemed essential to high-level performance. For instance a high level

of motivation is a basic prerequisite for success (Singer & Orbach, 1999; Baker &

Horton, 2004). Additionally, studies have alluded to significant motivational differences

between elite and non-elite Olympic weightlifters (Mahoney, 1989), greater anxiety

management skills and self-confidence among more successful than less successful

equestrian athletes (Meyers et al., 1994). Coetzee et al. (2006) identified psychological

skills such as concentration, goal orientation, performing optimally under pressure,

achievement motivation, arousal control and goal setting as important discriminating

factors between successful and less successful soccer teams.

Williams and Krane’s (2001) overview of studies on psychological skills alluded that,

higher levels of self-confidence and concentration are cardinal in facilitating successful

performance. Moreover, Smith et al. (1995) found that specific psychological skills (e.g.,

goal setting, mental preparation, coping with adversity, peaking under pressure,

concentration, confidence, and achievement motivation, freedom from worry and

coachability) distinguished between more and less successful professional baseball

players. Correspondingly, Gould et al. (2002) indicated that successful teams exhibit a

greater ability to rebound from mistakes than less successful teams. Mahoney et al.

(1987) pointed out that attributes such as arousal control, self-confidence,

concentration, and mental preparation are pertinent in the psychological profile of

successful athletes and teams. Kruger (2010) substantiated this observation with her

findings on the differences between successful and less successful field hockey players

regarding their achievement motivation, goal setting, self-confidence, imagery, and

mental preparation.


42

Despite the popular belief in the positive influence of psychological skills there are some

contrasting findings (Smith et al., 1988). For instance, studies have reported no

correlation between psychological skills and increased training volume of elite judo

athletes (Murphy et al., 1990), and no significant difference in psychological skills

between elite, sub-elite, and non-elite female tennis players (Meyers et al., 1994).

Janelle (1999) is of the opinion that behavioural disorders and intransigence in

psychosocial adjustments (e.g., social loafing) will result in unsatisfactory output.

Group cohesion

Coaches, sport psychologists and commentators are often baffled by the phenomenon

of a team enjoying considerable success one year and then performing miserably in the

year thereafter. Also how do teams with less-able and less-skilful players defy the odds

to beat some of the greatest teams to win a competitive championship? Babe Ruth (the

famed baseball player) once said “the way a team plays as a whole determines its

success. You might have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world but if they

don’t play as a unit the club won’t be worth a dime” (Babe Ruth, n.d.).

A meta-analysis of team cohesion by Mullen and Copper (1994) revealed a positive

relationship between cohesion and performance. Soccer, as a team sport, relies on

harmony, synergy and cooperative team work in order to achieve good results. This is

the ideal, but the so-called “super ego” syndrome and self-centred individual play are

nevertheless evident among certain players (Matheson et al., 1997).

Early perspectives

The early proposition of cohesion forwarded by Festinger et al. (1950) envisaged

cohesion as a collection of many factors that keeps the members of a group together.

Bollen and Hoyle (1990: 482) defined cohesion as “an individual’s sense of belonging to

a particular group and his or her feelings of morale associated with membership in

groups.”

Others have highlighted commitment to the task (goals) of the group (Goodman et al.,

1987), while others also included the attraction of the group as a dimension of cohesion


43

(Schachter et al., 1951). Cartwright (1968) contended that attraction to the group

becomes operational based on four interacting variables: (1) the motive for such

attraction (e.g., need for affiliation and recognition); (2) group goals involving prestige

and positive attributes of the team that are vicariously shared by individual members; (3)

expectancy of benefits that membership might provide; and (4) favourable comparison

with other groups regarding membership.

Carron (1982) is of the opinion that early conceptions of cohesion lacked sound

theoretical underpinnings. In addition, Carron (1982: 126) pointed out that, the over-

emphasis of early perceptions of cohesion as just delineated to the attraction of group to

members “underrepresented the concept and it is neither a necessary nor sufficient

condition for group formation”. He further reiterated that, the early perception regarded

cohesion as a static, one-dimensional condition. However, this perception changed in

the 1980s to a multidimensional approach, but was confined to individual and group

attraction without reference to the task and social dynamics of cohesion (Boone et al.,

1997). Mudrack (1989: 45) suggest that the early conceptualisation of the construct of

cohesion had been “dominated by confusion, contrariety and virtually untenable

structuring of the concept.”

More recent definitions and concepts

The definition of group cohesion deemed to be grounded on a sound theoretical

foundation was forwarded by Carron (1982) and later modified by Carron et al. (1998).

Carron et al., (1998: 213) defined cohesion as “the dynamic process which is reflected

in the tendency of a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its

instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs”. This

definition delineates the understanding of cohesion as (1) multidimensional (variety of

factors underlie the unity and consistency of a group); (2) dynamic (the degree of unity

and consistency can change over time); (3) instrumental (intended purpose that

underlies group formation); and (4) affectivity (social implications of staying together).

Carron et al. (1998) emphasized the multidimensional nature of cohesion by including

the task and social dimensions of cohesion. Task cohesion expresses the degree of


44

influence that involvement by group members contributes to attaining a common goal or

objective. The task also represents the purpose of the formation of the group (Carron et

al., 1998). Carron et al. (1985) contends that the nature of the group task is a strong

mediator of group cohesion. For instance, in an interactive sport (e.g., soccer) which

requires interdependence, commitment, and self-sacrifice of personal aggrandisement,

is seen to foster cohesion more than in a coactive sport (e.g., golf), which usually relies

on personal mastery of skills. Kozub and McDonnell (2000) reported that highly

cohesive teams demonstrate strong levels of group efficacy and such observation is

stronger for task cohesion than for social cohesion. Moreover, task cohesion is seen as

a triggering factor in boosting perceived psychological momentum (Eisler & Spink,

1998). This attribution of task cohesion (i.e., boosting psychological momentum) is

fundamental to success in a team sport such as soccer.

Social cohesion, on the other hand, reflects team members’ perception of personal

involvement, affiliations, and the collective ability to build harmonious interpersonal

relationships (Carron et al., 1998). Smith et al. (2001) highlight individual connections

with their teammates and feelings of friendship as factors consistently identified with the

concept of affiliation in sport. Coaches’ interaction with group members together with

open communication encourages members’ input when formulating team goals. This

fosters a sense of belonging among team members. It also leads to enhanced member

satisfaction and commitment to the group’s task. Carron et al. (1998) observed that a

strong social cohesion limits negative behaviour, such as tardiness and absenteeism,

among team members.

The multidimensional model of group cohesion outlined by Carron et al. (1998) also

includes individual and group aspects of cohesion. The group integration (GI) reflects

the beliefs and perceptions (e.g., similarity) that the group holds true and promote

closeness, similarity, and bonding as an integrated unit.

The individual attraction to the group (ATG) pertains to the attractiveness of the group to

the individual, and the motives that influence his/her commitment to the group.

In summary: the multidimensional concept of cohesion with its central beliefs forwarded

by Carron et al. (1985) comprises the following: how a team functions at a social level


45

(Group Integration-Social, GI-S); how the team functions as a unit to achieve team

goals (Group Integration-Task, GI-T); the degree to which a member is attracted to the

team by its social milieu (Individual Attraction to the Group-Social, ATG-S); and the

extent to which members are attracted to the team to achieve important goals

(Individual Attraction to the Group-Task, ATG-T).

Carron et al. (1985) used the concept of the individual and group dimension of

cohesion, anchored by both task and social components to develop the Group

Environmental Questionnaire (GEQ).

Factors that influence cohesion

Cohesion is subject to numerous moderating factors. For instance, the nature of the

task (Landers & Lueschen, 1974), the quality of the coach-athlete relationship (Bird,

1977), the ability of team members (Widmeyer & Martens, 1978) and the collective

motivation of the group (Ball & Carron, 1976) might impact on the cohesion of a team.

Carron et al. (1998) outlined four factors that influence cohesion in sport and exercise

settings: (1) environmental factors; (2) personal factors; (3) team factors; and (4)

leadership factors.

Environmental factors include proximity (when athletes spend a lot of time in each

other’s company, such as, when they are accommodated in the same living quarters).

Commonality (e.g., similar age, values, language) is also a cohesion-enhancing factor

because it fosters good communication (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). The size of the

group is also an important environmental factor. Smaller groups generally enjoy

stronger cohesion than large groups (Mullen & Copper, 1994; Carron & Spink, 1995).

Personal factors involve the similarity in attitudes, aspirations, commitment and

expectations of team members (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). Factors such as autonomy,

mutual trust among the coach and athlete, equality among teammates, opportunities to

make an input, and the absence of social loafing, influence team cohesion

(Papanikolaou et al., 2003). Carron and Dennis (2001) revealed that the most significant

personal factor related to the progression of both task and social cohesion on sport

teams is individual satisfaction. The satisfaction seen in the coordinated efforts of group


46

members provokes individual relentlessness, effort and contribution towards achieving

team objectives which results in greater cohesiveness.

Team factors refer to group task characteristics and dynamics, group productivity,

norms, success driven inclinations, group roles, group position and team stability

(Carron et al., 1998). Teams will find it difficult to survive and function effectively without

a definite purpose (Robbins & Finley, 1997). Clear, achievable goals and strategies to

achieve them are important for team cohesion. Ideally, team members should be part of

the goal setting process (Potgieter, 2006). Additionally, Brawley et al. (1987) suggested

that greater team cohesion empowers members to withstand the negative consequence

of disruptive events (such as poor performance) and encourage sensitivity to share

responsibility in the face of failure. The concept of teamwork, closeness, sense of

belonging, team identity and value of membership have been found to discriminate

between successful and less successful teams (Melnick & Chemers, 1974; Widmeyer &

Martens, 1978).

The stability of the composition of a team over an extended period maintains cohesion

(Carron, 1982). Success is also associated with team cohesion. However, the question

arises: are teams successful because of their strong cohesion or does cohesion makes

them successful. What comes first? (Mach et al., 2010).

In their work among intercollegiate field hockey players, Williams and Hacker (1982)

concluded that performance precedes cohesion. Mullen and Copper (1994) in their

meta-analysis also concluded that performance precedes cohesion. Mullen and Copper

(1994: 222) further declared that, “cohesiveness may indeed lead the group to perform

better but the tendency for the group to experience greater cohesiveness after

successful performance may be even stronger”. This was affirmed by Grieve et al.’s

(2000) research which also suggested performance excellence precedes cohesion.

Peterson and Martens (1972) described the relationship between cohesion and

performance as circular: performance influences cohesion and the ensuing changes in

cohesion in turn, affect subsequent performance.


47

Leadership factors entail leadership styles and behaviours, especially their

communication with the members of the team (Westre & Weiss, 1991; Brawley et al.,

1993). Decision-making style is also relevant. In critical situations an autocratic style

and a task-oriented rather than an interpersonal-oriented focus is required from the

leader (Foder, 1976; Schriesheim & Murphy, 1976). Cohesion is not a self-enduring

phenomenon, thus it needs consistent effort, commitment and the manipulation of

individual and group proclivities (e.g., goals, norms, conflicts) inherent in the team

dynamics to maintain its viability in team performance (Carron et al., 1998).

Cohesion and performance

The relationship between cohesion and sport performance in sport teams has been

comprehensively investigated within sport psychology. The general conclusion is that

cohesion has a definite positive effect on performance outcomes (Carron & Chelladurai,

1981; Carron, 1986; Williams & Widmeyer, 1991; Carron et al., 2002). These findings

apply to a variety of sports, for example soccer (Veit, 1973), basketball (Nixon, 1976),

and volleyball (Bird, 1977). In a review of 30 studies on team cohesion, Widmeyer et al.

(1993) established that 83% of them reported a positive relationship between cohesion

and performance. Carron et al.’s (2002) study on the cohesion-performance relationship

reported a moderate to large cohesion-performance effect. Research also indicated that

postseason cohesion is higher among successful teams than among unsuccessful

teams (Landers & Crum, 1971; Peterson & Martens, 1972; Nixon, 1976). Bray and

Whaley’s (2001) study revealed that high levels of cohesion increased performance by

producing higher levels of effort.

There are, however, some studies that have reported inconsistencies regarding the

cohesion-performance relationship. Melnick and Chemers (1974) found no correlation

between cohesion and performance, while others even found a negative correlation

(McGrath, 1962; Lenk, 1969; Landers & Lueschen, 1974). Similarly, the research of

Martens and Peterson (1971) and Gray (1975) revealed no significant relationship

between cohesion and performance outcome at the end of a competitive season.

Podsakoff et al. (1997) also reported insignificant relationships between cohesiveness

and performance and declared the research on this topic inconclusive.


48

Finally, Casey-Campbell and Martens (2009) ascribe the inconsistent findings with

regard to team cohesion on a lack of consensus on a definition, conceptualisation, and

measurement of the construct. Notably, studies have highlighted that moderating

variables that predict cohesion are generally different from those that influence

performance outcomes and that the cohesion-performance relationship might

sometimes be weak (Littlepage et al., 1989).

Psychological demands of different playing positions

It is speculated that there are different anthropometric and physiological requirements

for players in different playing positions in sport. It is also highly likely that there are also

different psychological dimensions required for competitors in different sports in general

and specifically for different positions within specific sports.

However, not a great deal of research has been conducted on the psychological

demands of different playing positions in team sport (Cox & Yoo, 1995). Some research

in this area has been conducted in American sport such as basketball, volleyball, and

American football (Nation & LeUnes, 1983; Cox, 1987; Cox & McManama, 1988).

Schurr et al. (1984) researched personality dimensions and playing positions of

American footballers and found differences between playing positions and personality

dispositions regarding extroversion-introversion; impractical-realistic; calculative-

intuitive, and judging-perceiving. Similarly, Cox (1987) found that setters in volleyball

displayed a stronger ability to broaden their internal attentional focus than middle

blockers and side hitters.

In a study of 199 team-sport athletes, Kirkcaldy (1982) revealed that offensive players

are more tough-minded, aggressive and extroverted than their defensive teammates.

Cox and Yoo (1995) reported significant differences for anxiety control, concentration,

and confidence between linesmen and backfield players in American football. They also

found a significant difference between offensive and defensive players in relation to

their anxiety control with offensive players recording higher scores.

Recent South African studies (e.g., Kruger, 2005; Grobbelaar & Eloff, 2011; Eloff et al.,

2011) have shed some light on this issue, but there is a dearth of knowledge about this


49

matter in the game of soccer. Grobbelaar and Eloff (2011) researched netball players

and found differences between the players’ on-court positions and their level of

psychological skills. For example, goal shooters recorded the lowest psychological skill

levels. Similarly, Eloff et al.’s (2011) also reported significant positional differences in

the mental skill levels of field hockey players. The goalkeepers showed the lowest

scores for seven (self-confidence, commitment, stress control, relaxation, activation,

focusing and refocusing) of the 12 mental skills, whereas the midfielders outperformed

the other positional groups in four (self-confidence, stress control, focusing, refocusing)

of the 12 mental skills tested in the study.

It is expected that each sport has its own unique demands and that differences in

psychological dispositions in both interactive and coactive sports do not necessarily

apply to all sports.

To summarize, studies examining the importance of psychological constructs

influencing performance excellence have been quite extensive in the sport psychology

literature. Against this backdrop, it is surprising that no study has endeavoured to

examine the integrative role of psychological constructs (i.e., mental toughness,

psychological skills) and team factors in the achievement of successful performance.

Sambolec et al. (2007) point out that the context in which psychological dimensions are

investigated can affect the findings of such studies. It could be concluded from the

review of the literature that the overwhelming majority of investigations on mental

toughness, psychological skills and team cohesion have been conducted within the

context of elite sport. Subsequently, there is a need for more research within the context

of young, developing sportspersons (including soccer players) to examine the

psychological and team antecedents of overall performance to provide a strong

theoretical foundation for applied psychological intervention programmes.


50

Chapter Three

Research Methodology

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of

Stellenbosch University (Reference number: HS841/2012).

Procedure

The researcher approached the governing body of the 2012 USSA Soccer

Championship to obtain permission to conduct this study. The purpose, aims, and

potential benefits of the study were explained to the council for their approval. The

contact details of the coaches and managers of the participating teams were also

secured.

The coaches were contacted and briefed about the study one month prior to the

tournament. A day before the tournament the respective teams were met separately,

during which the study and procedures were explained and their voluntary participation

requested.

The players were assured of confidentiality and were informed about their right to

withdraw from the study at any time and without prejudice. All the participants provided

written informed consent before data collection began. All data obtained during the

study were treated with stringent confidentiality and anonymity.

Questionnaires were administered at a convenient time in a comfortable classroom

setting, in order to limit competition-specific biases of participants’ responses. The

author/researcher supervised these sessions. Participants were required to complete

the questionnaires on their own without interaction with teammates. Instructions aimed

at reducing socially desirable answers were also given.


51

Participants

The target population for the study was subject to a sampling frame permissible by the

USSA Council’s rule regarding the number of players for each representing team in the

tournament.

The USSA 2012 Soccer Championship was chosen for this study, because of its highly

competitive nature. In addition, the participating teams qualified for the tournament by

emerging victorious in various regional leagues during 2012, thereby giving variance to

the sample. Correspondingly, the participants of the study were expected to provide rich

perspectives on the role of the different psychological constructs owing to the diversity

of their background, experiences, and mental aptitudes. A total of 263 male soccer

players aged between 17.43 and 32.01 years (M = 22.64, SD = 2.28) from 16 South

African tertiary institutions participated in the study. The size of the teams ranged from

11 to 21 players. With reference to the participants’ experience at this particular level,

66.2% (n = 174) of the players indicated that the 2012 USSA Soccer Championship was

their first USSA championship, whilst 22.8% (n = 60) participated in their second

championship. Eight percent (n = 21) of the participants recounted the 2012 USSA

Soccer Championship as their third championship, with the remaining 3% (n = 8)

attending their fourth championship.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Participants were included if they were…

1. enrolled as students at any one of the 16 tertiary institutions

taking part in the tournament.

2. representing one of the 16 tertiary institution teams taking part in

the tournament.

Participants were excluded from the study if they did not comply with the instructions

given prior to the administering of the questionnaires.


52

Measuring instruments

The following demographic information was gathered by means of a questionnaire: Age,

experience at this level (previous number of USSA tournaments), the number of months

they had been part of their team, the team they represented and their primary playing

position.

Three valid and reliable questionnaires were employed to assess the mental toughness,

psychological skills and group cohesion of the participants:

The Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ)

The SMTQ (Sheard et al., 2009) was used to evaluate the participants’ mental

toughness. The 14-item SMTQ provides a global measure of mental toughness (i.e., the

sum of the subscales scores), as well as three subscales encapsulating confidence,

constancy, and control. The participants had to respond to items on a four-point Likert-

type scale ranging from “not at all true” [1] to “very true” [4]. Sample items included “I

interpret threats as positive opportunities” (confidence); “I give up in difficult situations”

(constancy); and “I am overcome by self-doubt” (control). Confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) has provided support for the three subscales and the global measure of mental

toughness. Additionally, Sheard et al. (2009) revealed support for the internal reliability

of the SMTQ subscales with Cronbach α’s of greater than 0.72.

The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28 (ACSI-28)

The ACSI-28 of Smith et al. (1995) was employed to assess the psychological skills of

the participants. The ACSI-28 is a popular multidimensional assessment that provides a

trait-like measure of psychological skills. It consists of seven sport-specific subscales,

i.e., coping with adversity, peaking under pressure, goal setting/mental preparation,

concentration, freedom from worry, confidence, achievement motivation, and

coachability. Four items contributed to each subscale and the items were measured on

a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from “almost never” [0] to “almost always” [3].

Each of the seven subscales scores can range from 0 to 12, and summed and

averaged to provide a total personal coping resource score, which is assumed to reflect

a multi-faceted psychological skill construct indicating an athlete's overall coping ability.


53

A goodness of fit psychometric analysis has been done on the ACSI-28 to assess its

reliability and validity. Specifically, the test-retest reliability (over a period of one week

for a group of 1000 high-level athletes) ranged from 0.47 (coachability) to 0.87 (peaking

under pressure), and five of the seven subscales had coefficients above 0.70. Internal

consistency statistics (Cronbach alpha) ranged from 0.62 (concentration) to 0.78

(peaking under pressure), indicating adequate reliability (Smith et al., 1995). Initial

validity testing indicated that the respective subscales correlated well with existing

sport-psychological questionnaires (Smith et al., 1995).

The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)

The GEQ of Carron et al. (1985) was used to measure the athletes’ perceptions of their

team’s cohesion. The GEQ is a self-report questionnaire that comprises 18 items. They

are categorized into four cohesion subscales: individual attraction to the group-task

(ATG-T, four items), individual attraction to group-social (ATG-S, five items), group

integration-task (GI-T, five items) and group integration social (GI-S, four items). The

items are measured on a nine-point Likert-type scale anchored at the extremes by

“strongly disagree” [1] and “strongly agree” [9]. Higher scores reflect stronger

perceptions of cohesiveness. Carron et al. (1985) originally reported internal

consistencies for the four subscales ranging from 0.64 to 0.76 across two independent

athlete samples. The validity and internal consistency of the GEQ were supported by

subsequent research (e.g. Brawley et al., 1987; Li & Harmer, 1996).

Descriptive statistics of the questionnaires

The descriptive statistics and alpha coefficients for the SMTQ, ACSI-28 and GEQ

subscales are presented in Table 3.1. The overall internal consistency of the ACSI-28

and GEQ measures were adequate. However, there were problems with three of the

subscales. Two of the SMTQ subscales (total mental toughness, and control) were

found to have inadequate internal consistency (α ≤ 0.50). Likewise, the internal

consistency of the individual attraction to group-task subscale of the GEQ was

inadequate (α ≤ 0.50).


54

Table 3.1: Descriptive Statistics and Alpha Coefficients for the SMTQ, ACSI-28 and GEQ Subscales

Subscales Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Cronbach Alpha (α)

Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ) (Sheard et al., 2009)

Total Mental Toughness 2.99 0.35 0.02 0.42

Confidence 3.13 0.50 0.03 0.67

Constancy 3.44 0.48 0.03 0.50

Control 2.39 0.55 0.03 0.41

Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28 (ACSI-28) (Smith et al., 1995)

Composite Psychological Skills 1.97 0.37 0.02 0.76

Confidence and achievement motivation 2.25 0.50 0.03 0.56

Coachability 2.35 0.53 0.03 0.64

Goal setting/mental preparation 1.95 0.58 0.04 0.59

Concentration 1.94 0.51 0.03 0.50

Coping with adversity 1.98 0.56 0.03 0.61

Peaking under pressure 1.98 0.63 0.04 0.76

Freedom from worry 1.31 0.67 0.04 0.67

Group Environmental Questionnaire (GEQ) (Carron et al., 1985)

Individual attraction to group-social 6.77 1.46 0.09 0.62

Individual attraction to group-task 6.87 1.73 0.11 0.48

Group integration-task 6.19 1.58 0.10 0.69

Group integration-social 5.48 1.60 0.10 0.57



55

It must be emphasised that the size of the sample used in the present study was

considerably smaller than those used in the development of the three questionnaires,

and this may have accounted for the inadequate internal consistencies.

The three questionnaires have also not been standardized within the South African

context.

Measurement of performance

The primary measures of team performance were the teams’ log positions at the end of

the tournament. The 16 teams were divided into four pools of four teams each. Three

round-robin matches were played followed by play-offs on days four and five depending

on their placing in the respective pools. This ultimately yielded a final ranking from 1 to

16. Teams were used as the units of analysis rather than individual players, which is in

accordance with Rousseau’s (1985) recommendation to adjust the analysis level to the

focus of the unit under investigation, in this instance the team.

Statistical analysis

Microsoft Office Excel (2010) and STATISTICA 10 were used to analyse the data.

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean) were

calculated for all subscale measures, whilst Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were

determined to evaluate the internal consistencies of the SMTQ, ACSI-28, and the GEQ

subscales.

The teams were divided into different groups (based on their final position on the log)

and compared by means of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine

differences between the groups. To determine between which groups these differences

exist, post-hoc comparisons were conducted using the Least-Significant-Difference

(LSD) procedure, which already has inbuilt protection against type-1 errors (Kepple,

1982).

One-way ANOVAs were conducted to examine differences in mental toughness,

psychological skills, and team cohesion as a function of the different playing positions.


56

Post-hoc analysis (LSD) was conducted to determine the differences between the

positional groups. Statistical significance was set as p ≤ 0.05 throughout.

Additionally, effect sizes (ES) were used to determine practical significant differences

between the various positional groups for each of the different subscales. ES was

calculated by means of the formula described by Thomas et al. (2005), that is: ES = (M1

– M2)/s. Here, M1 = the mean value of the first positional group in the comparison, M2 =

the mean value of the second positional group in the comparison and s = the standard

deviation. The pooled standard deviation (Sp) was used; calculated by means of the

following formula:

Here, S12 = the variance of the participants in the first positional group; S2

2 = the

variance of the participants in the second positional group; n1 = the number of

participants in the first positional group; n2 = the number of participants in the second

positional group.

Effect sizes are expressed as Cohen’s d-value and can be interpreted as follows: an ES

of more or less 0.8 is large; an ES of more or less 0.5 is moderate; and an ES of more

or less 0.2 is small (Thomas et al., 2005).

2

)1()1(

21

22

212

1

nn

nsnssp


57

Chapter Four

Results

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of mental toughness, psychological

skills and team cohesion in the performance of soccer teams. More specifically, it aimed

to determine the extent to which these factors differentiate between successful and less

successful teams. Also, the role of age, tournament experience and the time period

players had been members of a team were investigated. A third aim of the study was to

determine whether the mental toughness, psychological skills and team cohesion

scores of soccer players in different playing positions differed from one another.

Tables 4.1 to 4.19 report on the comparisons between the different variables (player

demographics, mental toughness, psychological skills, and team cohesion) and team

performance. These comparisons were conducted at three levels. Firstly, all 16 teams

were compared with each other based on their final log positions at the end of the

USSA Soccer Championship. The descriptive statistics of these comparisons are

reported in the left-hand column of each table.

Thereafter, the 16 teams were grouped to form four cluster groups consisting of four

teams each, i.e., the top four teams, the teams placed 5–8 on the log, those in positions

9-12, and lastly the teams who ended in positions 13-16. Their descriptive statistics are

presented in middle column of each table.

Lastly, the top eight and bottom eight teams were compared, with their descriptive

statistics reported in the right-hand column of each table.

Figures 4.1 to 4.7 depict those variables for which significant differences existed.

Age

Table 4.1 shows that no significant (F15, 247 = 1.352; p = 0.17) effect was found for age

and performance (teams’ final log placing). Post-hoc analysis revealed differences

between the following teams: 2 and 10; 5 and 10. The following nine teams (1, 2, 3, 4,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9) also differed from team 15.


58

Table 4.1: Between-group comparisons of age

Log position (1-16) 4 x 4 groupings (1-4, 5-8, 9-12 & 13-16) Top eight versus bottom eight teams

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 22.29 2.19 0.53

1-4

22.29

2.05

0.24

1-8

22.37

2.18

0.19

2 21.86 2.06 0.46

3 22.27 2.09 0.52

4 22.74 1.93 0.44

5 21.92 1.70 0.42

5-8

22.47

2.33

0.30

6 23.35 3.60 0.93

7 22.19 1.71 0.43

8 22.51 1.64 0.47

9 22.45 2.34 0.63

9-12

22.82

2.23

0.28

9-16

22.92

2.35

0.21

10 23.56 2.32 0.58

11 22.74 2.50 0.62

12 22.55 1.85 0.42

13 22.62 2.33 0.51

13-16

23.02

2.48

0.31

14 22.38 1.99 0.53

15 24.61 3.84 1.16

16 22.31 1.61 0.36

* Statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05)

*



59

An analysis of the four cluster groups (based on their final log positions) also did not

reveal any significant difference (F3, 259 = 1.449; p = 0.23) regarding mean age.

A significant difference (F1, 261 = 3.910; p = 0.05) was found between the mean age of

the top eight and bottom eight teams with the top eight teams being significantly

younger (see Figure 4.1).


Figure 4.1: Between-group comparisons of age

USSA tournament experience

A significant effect (F15, 247 = 5.404; p ≤ 0.01) was found for previous USSA tournament

experience on performance (teams’ eventual log standings). A post-hoc analysis

revealed significant differences between multiple teams (Table 4.2).

The analysis between the four cluster groups revealed a significant effect for previous

USSA tournament experience in differentiating between teams with regard to their

eventual log placement (F3, 259 = 12.456; p ≤ 0.01). Post-hoc analysis revealed

differences between cluster groups 1-4 and 5-8; 1-4 and 9-12; 1-4 and 13-16 (see

Figure 4.2).

*


60

Table 4.2: Between-group comparisons of USSA tournament experience


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 0.82 0.95 0.23

1-4

0.90

0.98

0.12

1-8

0.63

0.89

0.08

2 1.20 1.15 0.26

3 1.06 1.00 0.25

4 0.53 0.70 0.16

5 0.00 0.00 0.00

5-8

0.30

0.62

0.08

6 0.60 0.63 0.16

7 0.06 0.25 0.06

8 0.67 0.98 0.28

9 0.00 0.00 0.00

9-12

0.45

0.66

0.08

9-16

0.33

0.60

0.05

10 0.63 0.72 1.18

11 0.63 0.50 0.13

12 0.47 0.84 0.19

13 0.05 0.22 0.05

13-16

0.21

0.51

0.06

14 0.71 0.83 0.22

15 0.18 0.40 0.12

16 0.05 0.22 0.05

** Statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.01)

**

**

** **



61

A significant difference (F1, 261 = 10.355; p ≤ 0.01) was found between the top eight and

bottom eight teams for previous USSA tournament experience with the top eight teams

showing greater experience levels (see Figure 4.2).


Figure 4.2: Between-group comparisons of USSA tournament experience

Period players had been part of a team

Table 4.3 indicates that, a significant effect (F15, 247 = 2.969; p ≤ 0.01) was found for the

number of months being part of a specific team on performance (teams’ eventual log

positions). Post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences between multiple teams.

The analysis between the four cluster groups revealed a significant effect for the

number of months being part of a team on team performance (F3, 259 = 8.634; p ≤ 0.01).

Post-hoc analysis revealed differences between cluster groups 1-4 and 5-8; 1-4 and 9-

12; 5-8 and 13-16; 9-12 and 13-16 (see Figure 4.3).

There was no significant difference between the top eight and bottom eight teams for

the number of months players had been part of their respective teams (F1, 261 = 0.003; p

= 0.95).

**

**

** **


62

Table 4.3: Between-group comparisons for the period players had been part of a team


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 17.88 13.81 3.35

1-4

23.04

14.17

1.67

1-8

18.87

13.40

1.17

2 25.35 13.51 3.02

3 24.50 16.15 4.04

4 24.00 13.36 3.07

5 21.06 12.87 3.12

5-8

13.87

10.51

1.36

6 10.47 7.78 2.01

7 11.69 9.65 2.41

8 10.83 5.95 1.72

9 10.29 3.58 0.96

9-12

14.98

10.97

1.36

9-16

18.77

14.44

1.26

10 12.69 12.74 3.18

11 18.25 10.06 2.52

12 17.63 12.66 2.90

13 21.86 14.75 3.22

13-16

22.50

16.44

2.02

14 27.00 26.44 7.07

15 17.36 8.61 2.59

16 22.85 12.16 2.72


**

**

**

**



63


Figure 4.3: Between-group comparisons for the period players had been part of a team

Total mental toughness

Table 4.4 shows that there was no significant effect for total mental toughness on team

performance (F15, 247 = 0.453; p = 0.96).

The analysis of the four cluster groups revealed no significant effect for total mental

toughness in differentiating between teams’ performance (F3, 259 = 0.139; p = 0.94).


total mental toughness (F1, 261 = 0.010; p = 0.92).

Confidence

Table 4.5 reveals that, there was no significant (F15, 247 = 0.875; p = 0.593) effect for

confidence on team performance. A post-hoc analysis yielded differences between the

following teams: 11 and 12; 11 and 15; 12 and 14; 14 and 15.

The analysis of the four cluster groups revealed no significant effect for confidence in

differentiating between teams’ tournament performance (F3, 259 = 0.381; p = 0.99).


confidence (F1, 261 = 0.70; p = 0.79).

** ** **

**


64

Table 4.4: Between-group comparisons of total mental toughness scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 3.00 0.36 0.09

1-4

2.99

0.34

0.04

1-8

2.98

0.35

0.03

2 2.94 0.38 0.08

3 3.01 0.30 0.07

4 3.04 0.32 0.07

5 3.02 0.45 0.11

5-8

2.97

0.37

0.05

6 2.96 0.38 0.10

7 2.88 0.27 0.07

8 3.05 0.38 0.11

9 3.05 0.28 0.08

9-12

3.01

0.29

0.03

9-16

2.99

0.34

0.03

10 3.00 0.30 0.08

11 3.07 0.30 0.07

12 2.93 0.27 0.06

13 3.01 0.32 0.07

13-16

2.97

0.39

0.05

14 3.06 0.48 0.13

15 2.88 0.44 0.13

16 2.93 0.36 0.08



65

Table 4.5: Between-group comparisons of confidence scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 3.13 0.55 0.13

1-4

3.11

0.50

0.06

1-8

3.12

0.51

0.04

2 3.18 0.47 0.10

3 3.05 0.45 0.11

4 3.07 0.51 0.12

5 3.21 0.42 0.10

5-8

3.13

0.53

0.07

6 3.04 0.66 0.17

7 3.05 0.61 0.15

8 3.22 0.44 0.13

9 3.07 0.49 0.13

9-12

3.13

0.46

0.06

9-16

3.13

0.49

0.04

10 3.24 0.46 0.11

11 3.29 0.43 0.11

12 2.95 0.43 0.10

13 3.21 0.39 0.08

13-16

3.14

0.51

0.06

14 3.31 0.59 0.16

15 2.88 0.50 0.15

16 3.08 0.55 0.12



66

Constancy

Table 4.6 shows that there was no statistically significant effect for constancy on team

performance (F15, 247 = 0.484; p = 0.95).

The ANOVA analysis of the four cluster groups yielded no significant effect for

constancy in differentiating between teams with regard to their eventual tournament log

positions (F3, 259 = 0.106; p = 0.96).


constancy in relation to the teams’ performance (F1, 261 = 0.260; p = 0.61).

Control

Table 4.7 shows that, there was no significant effect for control on team performance

(F15, 247 = 0.590; p= 0.88).

An analysis on the four cluster groups did not reveal any significant difference (F3, 259 =

0.734; p = 0.53) with regard to the construct of control.


control (F1, 261 = 0.241; p = 0.62).

Composite psychological skills

There was no significant effect (F15, 247 = 0.974; p = 0.48) for composite psychological

skills on performance. A post-hoc analysis revealed differences between the following

teams: 2 and 7; 4 and 7; 7 and 8; 7 and 10; 7 and 13; 7 and 14; 7 and 16 (Table 4.8).

The ANOVA analysis of the four cluster groups indicated no significant effect for

composite psychological skills in differentiating between teams with regard to their final

tournament log positions (F3, 259 = 0.996; p = 0.40).

Further analysis of the differences between the top eight and bottom eight teams

revealed no significant effect for their composite psychological skills score (F1, 261 =

0.879; p = 0.35).


67

Table 4.6: Between-group comparisons of constancy scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 3.46 0.54 0.13

1-4

3.44

0.51

0.06

1-8

3.43

0.49

0.04

2 3.30 0.52 0.12

3 3.53 0.53 0.13

4 3.49 0.46 0.10

5 3.38 0.48 0.11

5-8

3.42

0.46

0.06

6 3.42 0.52 0.14

7 3.36 0.40 0.10

8 3.56 0.45 0.13

9 3.57 0.32 0.08

9-12

3.45

0.48

0.06

9-16

3.46

0.47

0.04

10 3.45 0.55 0.14

11 3.44 0.44 0.11

12 3.38 0.57 0.13

13 3.54 0.40 0.09

13-16

3.47

0.46

0.06

14 3.46 0.58 0.15

15 3.30 0.40 0.12

16 3.49 0.46 0.10



68

Table 4.7: Between-group comparisons of control scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 2.41 0.56 0.14

1-4

2.43

0.53

0.06

1-8

2.41

0.53

0.05

2 2.33 0.51 0.11

3 2.45 0.48 0.12

4 2.55 0.59 0.13

5 2.47 0.67 0.16

5-8

2.38

0.54

0.07

6 2.42 0.44 0.11

7 2.23 0.37 0.09

8 2.38 0.65 0.19

9 2.50 0.55 0.15

9-12

2.44

0.56

0.07

9-16

2.37

0.56

0.05

10 2.30 0.54 0.14

11 2.47 0.57 0.14

12 2.47 0.59 0.14

13 2.27 0.44 0.10

13-16

2.31

0.56

0.07

14 2.39 0.86 0.23

15 2.48 0.60 0.18

16 2.21 0.39 0.09



69

Table 4.8: Between-group comparisons of composite psychological skills scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 1.95 0.50 0.12

1-4

1.98

0.37

0.04

1-8

1.94

0.38

0.03

2 1.98 0.37 0.08

3 1.90 0.31 0.08

4 2.08 0.27 0.06

5 1.91 0.40 0.10

5-8

1.90

0.40

0.05

6 1.91 0.39 0.10

7 1.73 0.36 0.09

8 2.09 0.40 0.12

9 1.86 0.25 0.07

9-12

1.97

0.33

0.04

9-16

1.99

0.35

0.03

10 2.02 0.35 0.09

11 2.01 0.29 0.07

12 1.96 0.41 0.09

13 2.01 0.31 0.07

13-16

2.01

0.36

0.04

14 2.01 0.41 0.11

15 1.91 0.35 0.11

16 2.05 0.41 0.09



70

Confidence and achievement motivation

Table 4.9 indicates that no significant effect (F15, 247 = 1.148; p = 0.31) was found for

confidence and achievement motivation on performance. Post-hoc analysis revealed

differences between the following teams: 2 and 5; 4 and 5; 5 and 16; 7 and 16; 9 and

16; 14 and 16.

There was no significant effect for confidence and achievement motivation in

differentiating between the respective cluster team groups after the tournament (F3, 259 =

1.644; p = 0.18).


confidence and achievement motivation (F1, 261 = 0.059; p = 0.81).

Coachability

Table 4.10 reveals that there was no significant effect for coachability on performance

(F 15, 247 = 1.230; p = 0.25). Post-hoc analysis showed differences between the following

teams: 1 and 4; 1 and 10; 1 and 13; 4 and 7; 7 and 8; 7 and 10; 7 and 12; 7 and 13; 7

and 16.

An analysis of the four cluster positional groups did not indicate any significant

difference (F3, 259 = 1.099; p = 0.35) with regards to coachability.

Further analysis done to examine the differences between the top eight and bottom

eight teams revealed no significant effect of coachability on the eventual log standings

of the teams (F1, 261 = 3.070; p = 0.11).


71

Table 4.9: Between-group comparisons of confidence and achievement motivation scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 2.26 0.70 0.17

1-4

2.33

0.55

0.06

1-8

2.26

0.52

0.05

2 2.41 0.61 0.14

3 2.20 0.48 0.12

4 2.42 0.37 0.09

5 2.03 0.54 0.13

5-8

2.17

0.48

0.06

6 2.17 0.40 0.10

7 2.14 0.50 0.12

8 2.40 0.39 0.11

9 2.09 0.36 0.10

9-12

2.19

0.46

0.06

9-16

2.24

0.49

0.04

10 2.17 0.48 0.12

11 2.22 0.46 0.11

12 2.26 0.53 0.12

13 2.30 0.50 0.11

13-16

2.29

0.51

0.06

14 2.13 0.50 0.13

15 2.16 0.58 0.18

16 2.48 0.47 0.10



72

Table 4.10: Between-group comparisons of coachability scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 2.10 0.71 0.17

1-4

2.32

0.54

0.06

1-8

2.30

0.55

0.05

2 2.31 0.47 0.11

3 2.38 0.43 0.11

4 2.46 0.50 0.11

5 2.32 0.59 0.14

5-8

2.28

0.56

0.07

6 2.33 0.46 0.12

7 2.02 0.54 0.14

8 2.48 0.60 0.17

9 2.38 0.46 0.12

9-12

2.42

0.52

0.07

9-16

2.41

0.51

0.04

10 2.52 0.39 0.10

11 2.34 0.69 0.17

12 2.45 0.54 0.12

13 2.54 0.46 0.10

13-16

2.40

0.51

0.06

14 2.18 0.65 0.17

15 2.41 0.45 0.14

16 2.41 0.46 0.10



73

Goal setting

There was no significant effect (F15, 247 = 1.535; p = 0.09) observed for goal setting on

performance with regard to teams’ eventual log positions as indicated in Table 4.11. A

post-hoc analysis revealed differences between the following teams: 1 and 9; 2 and 9; 3

and 9; 4 and 9; 5 and 9; 7and 9; 8 and 9; 9 and 10; 9 and 11; 9 and 12; 9 and 13; 9 and

14; 9 and 16; 10 and 15; 15 and 16.

The analysis of the four cluster groups revealed no significant effect for goal setting in

differentiating between teams with regard to their eventual tournament log placement

(F3, 259 = 0.884; p = 0.45).


goal setting (F1, 261 = 0.133; p = 0.72).

Concentration

Table 4.12 shows that, there was no significant effect for concentration on performance

with regard to the teams’ tournament log positions (F15, 247 = 0.940; p = 0.52). A post-

hoc analysis indicated differences between the following teams: 2 and 4; 3 and 4; 4 and

5; 4 and 6; 4 and 7; 4 and 12; 4 and 13; 4 and 16.

An analysis of the four cluster groups (based on their final log positions) did not reveal

any significant difference (F3, 259 = 0.576; p = 0.63) regarding concentration.

Further analysis done to examine the differences between the top eight and bottom

eight teams revealed no significant effect for concentration on the eventual log positions

of the teams (F1, 261 = 0.078; p = 0.78).


74

Table 4.11: Between-group comparisons of goal setting scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 1.91 0.68 0.16

1-4

1.93

0.60

0.07

1-8

1.94

0.55

0.05

2 1.94 0.68 0.15

3 1.97 0.51 0.13

4 1.91 0.57 0.13

5 1.91 0.50 0.12

5-8

1.95

0.48

0.06

6 1.83 0.44 0.11

7 2.09 0.55 0.14

8 1.96 0.41 0.12

9 1.43 0.65 0.17

9-12

1.88

0.65

0.08

9-16

1.97

0.62

0.05

10 2.16 0.45 0.11

11 2.03 0.55 0.14

12 1.87 0.73 0.17

13 2.12 0.59 0.13

13-16

2.05

0.58

0.07

14 2.04 0.47 0.13

15 1.70 0.52 0.16

16 2.16 0.63 0.14



75

Table 4.12: Between-group comparisons of concentration scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 1.97 0.62 0.15

1-4

1.99

0.55

0.06

1-8

1.95

0.50

0.04

2 1.88 0.52 0.12

3 1.84 0.52 0.13

4 2.26 0.47 0.11

5 1.90 0.29 0.07

5-8

1.90

0.44

0.06

6 1.85 0.42 0.11

7 1.80 0.59 0.15

8 2.08 0.40 0.12

9 1.96 0.32 0.09

9-12

1.96

0.46

0.06

9-16

1.93

0.51

0.04

10 1.95 0.53 0.13

11 2.03 0.34 0.09

12 1.91 0.59 0.14

13 1.85 0.56 0.12

13-16

1.90

0.56

0.07

14 2.05 0.53 0.14

15 1.89 0.53 0.16

16 1.86 0.63 0.14



76

Coping with adversity

Table 4.13 indicates that no significant effect (F 15, 247 = 1.319; p = 0.19) was found for

coping with adversity on performance with regard to the teams’ eventual log

placements. Post-hoc analysis revealed differences between teams in the following

positions: 1 and 8; 3 and 8; 5 and 8; 6 and 8; 7 and 8; 7 and 10; 8 and 9; 8 and 12; 9

and 10.

The analysis of the four cluster groups revealed no significant effect for coping with

adversity in differentiating between the teams’ final log placing (F3, 259 = 0.534; p = 0.66).


coping with adversity (F1, 261 = 0.302; p = 0.58).

Peaking under pressure

Table 4.14 shows that there was no significant effect for peaking under pressure on

performance with regard to the teams’ final log standings (F 15, 247 = 1.410; p = 0.14).

Post-hoc analysis indicated differences between the team that ended seventh on the log

and all other teams.

The analysis between the four cluster groups revealed no significant effect for peaking

under pressure in differentiating between teams with regard to their eventual log

positions (F3, 259 = 1.611; p = 0.19). However, post-hoc analysis showed differences

between cluster groups 5-8 and 13-16.


peaking under pressure (F1, 261 = 1.013; p = 0.32).


77

Table 4.13: Between-group comparisons of coping with adversity scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 1.97 0.65 0.16

1-4

1.96

0.58

0.07

1-8

1.96

0.59

0.05

2 2.00 0.51 0.11

3 1.81 0.69 0.17

4 2.04 0.50 0.12

5 1.85 0.47 0.11

5-8

1.95

0.60

0.08

6 1.93 0.56 0.15

7 1.73 0.64 0.16

8 2.40 0.59 0.17

9 1.71 0.40 0.11

9-12

1.94

0.53

0.07

9-16

1.99

0.53

0.05

10 2.13 0.53 0.13

11 2.06 0.45 0.11

12 1.84 0.61 0.14

13 2.05 0.42 0.09

13-16

2.05

0.52

0.06

14 2.02 0.49 0.13

15 2.11 0.48 0.14

16 2.04 0.68 0.15



78

Table 4.14: Between-group comparisons of peaking under pressure scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 2.00 0.68 0.17

1-4

2.03

0.61

0.07

1-8

1.94

0.68

0.06

2 2.01 0.59 0.13

3 1.98 0.54 0.13

4 2.11 0.67 0.15

5 1.90 0.65 0.16

5-8

1.83

0.74

0.10

6 2.07 0.68 0.18

7 1.36 0.69 0.17

8 2.08 0.77 0.22

9 1.98 0.62 0.17

9-12

1.97

0.57

0.07

9-16

2.02

0.57

0.05

10 1.95 0.56 0.14

11 2.05 0.47 0.12

12 1.92 0.65 0.15

13 2.08 0.56 0.12

13-16

2.06

0.58

0.07

14 2.16 0.55 0.15

15 1.84 0.66 0.20

16 2.09 0.58 0.13



79

Freedom from worry

There was no significant effect (F15, 247 = 0.775; p = 0.71) observed for freedom from

worry on performance with regard to teams’ eventual log positions. A post-hoc analysis

revealed differences between log positional teams 7 and 14 (Table 4.15).

An analysis of the four cluster groups (based on their final log positions) did not reveal

any significant difference (F3, 259 = 0.765; p = 0.38) regarding freedom from worry.

Further analysis to examine the differences between the top eight and bottom eight

teams revealed no significant effect for freedom from worry on the eventual log

standings of the teams (F1, 261 = 0.753; p = 0.52).

Individual attraction to group-social

A significant effect for individual attraction to group-social (F15, 247 = 3.463; p ≤ 0.01) was

observed on performance with regard to the teams’ eventual log positions. Post-hoc

analysis revealed differences between multiple teams (Table 4.16).

The analysis of the four cluster groups indicated a significant effect for individual

attraction to group-social in differentiating between teams with regard to their final log

positions (F3, 259 = 5.389; p ≤ 0.01). Post-hoc analysis revealed differences between

cluster groups 1-4 and 5-8; 1-4 and 9-12; as well as between groups 5-8 and 13-16 (see

Figure 4.4).


individual attraction to group-social (F1, 261 = 0.001; p = 0.98).


80

Table 4.15: Between-group comparisons of freedom from worry scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 1.44 0.75 0.18

1-4

1.32

0.66

0.08

1-8

1.27

0.69

0.06

2 1.31 0.63 0.14

3 1.11 0.63 0.16

4 1.38 0.64 0.15

5 1.46 0.81 0.20

5-8

1.22

0.72

0.09

6 1.18 0.66 0.17

7 1.00 0.67 0.17

8 1.21 0.70 0.20

9 1.48 0.55 0.15

9-12

1.40

0.61

0.08

9-16

1.34

0.66

0.06

10 1.30 0.77 0.19

11 1.36 0.65 0.16

12 1.45 0.51 0.12

13 1.14 0.72 0.16

13-16

1.29

0.71

0.09

14 1.52 0.80 0.21

15 1.25 0.72 0.22

16 1.31 0.62 0.14



81

Table 4.16: Between-group comparisons of individual attraction to group–social scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 6.64 1.63 0.39

1-4

7.18

1.33

0.16

1-8

6.77

1.47

0.13

2 7.61 1.29 0.29

3 7.31 1.04 0.26

4 7.08 1.22 0.28

5 5.59 1.41 0.34

5-8

6.29

1.49

0.19

6 6.60 1.24 0.32

7 7.09 1.22 0.30

8 5.83 1.72 0.50

9 7.10 1.12 0.30

9-12

6.54

1.49

0.18

9-16

6.78

1.46

0.13

10 6.14 1.63 0.41

11 7.03 1.35 0.34

12 6.05 1.55 0.36

13 7.72 0.99 0.22

13-16

7.01

1.41

0.17

14 6.44 1.50 0.40

15 6.56 1.46 0.44

16 6.91 1.47 0.33

** Statistically significant difference (p ≤0.01)

**

**

**



82


Figure 4.4: Between-group comparisons of individual attraction to group–social scores

Individual attraction to group-task

A significant effect (F15, 247 = 2.699; p ≤ 0.01) was found for individual attraction to group-

task on performance with regard to the teams’ eventual log standings. A post-hoc

analysis revealed significant differences between multiple teams (Table 4.17).

The analysis between the four cluster groups revealed a borderline significant effect for

individual attraction to group-task in differentiating between teams with regards to their

final log positions after the tournament (F3, 259 = 1.636; p = 0.10). Post-hoc analysis

revealed differences between cluster groups 1-4 and 5-8; as well as between groups 1-4

and 9-12 (see Figure 4.5).

.

** **

**


83

† Borderline statistical significance (p ≤ 0.10)

Figure 4.5: Between-group comparisons of individual attraction to group–task scores

There were no significant differences between the top eight and bottom eight teams for

individual attraction to group-task (F1,261 = 0.194; p = 0.66) as indicated in Table 4.17.

Group integration-task

A significant effect was found for group integration-task (F15, 247 = 3.347; p ≤ 0.01) on

performance with regard to the teams’ eventual log placements (Table 4.18). A post-hoc

analysis revealed differences between multiple teams.

An analysis of the four cluster groups (based on their final log positions) revealed a

significant effect for group integration-task in differentiating between teams after the

tournament (F3, 259 = 3.598; p = 0.01). Post-hoc analysis revealed differences between

cluster groups 5-8 and 13-16; as well as between groups 9-12 and 13-16 (see Figure

4.6).

†

†


84

Table 4.17: Between-group comparisons of individual attraction to group-task scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 5.94 1.90 0.46

1-4

7.14

1.83

0.22

1-8

6.91

1.77

0.15

2 7.31 1.60 0.36

3 7.53 1.72 0.43

4 7.68 1.73 0.40

5 5.97 1.83 0.44

5-8

6.65

1.67

0.22

6 6.33 1.62 0.42

7 7.45 1.20 0.30

8 6.92 1.70 0.49

9 6.79 1.35 0.36

9-12

6.60

1.60

0.20

9-16

6.82

1.69

0.15

10 6.77 1.63 0.41

11 7.52 1.35 0.34

12 5.55 1.44 0.33

13 7.25 1.52 0.33

13-16

7.04

1.77

0.22

14 6.50 2.43 0.65

15 6.86 0.10 0.30

16 7.29 1.83 0.41

†

†



85

Table 4.18: Between-group comparisons of group integration–task scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 6.02 1.26 0.31

1-4

6.31

1.40

0.17

1-8

6.08

1.53

0.13

2 6.33 1.33 0.30

3 7.03 1.27 0.32

4 5.93 1.56 0.36

5 4.65 1.37 0.33

5-8

5.81

1.65

0.21

6 6.41 0.98 0.25

7 6.05 1.54 0.39

8 6.37 2.09 0.60

9 6.43 1.40 0.37

9-12 **

5.96

1.73

0.21

9-16

6.30

1.63

0.14

10 5.25 1.68 0.42

11 7.03 1.32 0.33

12 5.33 1.83 0.42

13 6.88 1.40 0.31

13-16

6.64

1.47

0.18

14 6.63 1.57 0.42

15 6.35 1.46 0.44

16 6.55 1.54 0.34


** **



86


Figure 4.6: Between-group comparisons of group integration–task scores

Further analysis to examine the differences between the top eight and bottom eight

teams revealed no significant effect for group integration-task on the eventual log

standings of the teams (F1, 261 = 1.312; p = 0.25).

Group integration-social

There was a significant effect (F15, 247 = 3.229; p ≤ .01) for group integration-social on

performance with regard to the teams’ eventual log positions (Table 4.19). A post-hoc

analysis revealed significant differences between multiple log positional teams.

An analysis of the four cluster groups revealed a significant effect for group integration-

social in differentiating between teams with regard to their eventual log placements after

the tournament (F3, 259 = 5.502; p ≤ 0.01). Follow-up post-hoc analysis revealed

significant differences between cluster groups 1-4 and 13-16; 5-8 and 9-12; as well as

between groups 5-8 and 13-16 (see Figure 4.7).

There was a significant difference between the top eight and bottom eight teams for

group integration-social (F1, 261 = 12.013; p ≤ 0.01) (see Figure 4.7).

**

**


87

Table 4.19: Between-group Comparisons of group integration–social scores


Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

1 5.63 1.55 0.38

1-4

5.31

1.57

0.19

1-8

5.15

1.50

0.13

2 5.40 1.72 0.38

3 5.89 1.44 0.36

4 4.45 1.27 0.29

5 4.49 1.01 0.24

5-8

4.95

1.40

0.18

6 5.20 1.43 0.37

7 5.30 1.28 0.32

8 4.85 1.91 0.55

9 6.84 1.36 0.36

9-12

5.60

1.61

0.20

9-16

5.82

1.63

0.14

10 5.00 1.72 0.43

11 5.47 1.60 0.40

12 5.29 1.30 0.30

13 6.54 1.19 0.26

13-16

6.04

1.63

0.20

14 6.04 1.69 0.45

15 5.23 1.58 0.47

16 5.98 1.93 0.43


**

**

**

**



88


Figure 4.7: Between-group comparisons of group integration–social scores

Positional comparisons

Tables 4.20 to 4.22 report on the positional comparisons for each of the different

variables (mental toughness, psychological skills, and team cohesion). The players were

grouped into four positional groups, i.e., goalkeepers (n = 29), defenders (n = 85),

midfielders (n = 103) and forwards (n = 46), based on their primary playing position. It

should be noted that players are often rotated into different playing positions depending

on the match situation and team strategy. One-way analysis of variance was utilized to

ascertain whether statistically significant differences exist between the different playing

positions for the different mental toughness, psychological skills and group cohesion

variables. Results of the analysis of each of the variables yielded no statistically

significant differences between the positional groups. Follow-up LSD tests were used to

develop the four possible pair-wise comparisons between the groups’ positional means

for each measured subscale. Statistically significant and a trend of borderline significant

differences were found for five of the positional comparison analysed in relation to the

SMTQ subscale of control and constancy and the GEQ subscale of group integration-

task. Effect sizes (ES) were also calculated to determine practical significant differences

between the various positional groups for each subscale. These significant differences

are graphically illustrated in Figures 4.8 to 4.10.

**

**

** **


89

Table 4.20: Comparisons between player positional groups (SMTQ)

Mean ± SD Positional group

Statistical significance (p-value)

Practical significance (d-value)

Goalkeepers (n = 29)

Defenders (n = 85)

Midfielders (n = 103)

Forwards (n = 46)

Total Mental Toughness subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.235; p = 0.87)

3.00 ± 0.35 Goalkeepers - p = 0.98 p = 0.90 p = 0.55

3.00 ± 0.34 Defenders d = 0.00 - p = 0.83 p = 0.42

2.99 ± 0.33 Midfielders d = 0.03 d = 0.03 - p = 0.52

2.95 ± 0.39 Forwards d = 0.13 d = 0.14 d = 0.11 -

Confidence subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.522; p = 0.67)

3.13 ± 0.40 Goalkeepers - p = 0.72 p = 0.66 p = 0.78

3.16 ± 0.48 Defenders d = 0.07 - p = 0.25 p = 0.95

3.08 ± 0.50 Midfielders d = 0.10 d = 0.16 - p = 0.37

3.16 ± 0.58 Forwards d = 0.06 d = 0.00 d = 0.15 -

Constancy subscale: (F 3, 259 = 1.388; p = 0.25)

3.44 ± 0.49 Goalkeepers - p = 0.38 p = 0.68 p = 0.70

3.53 ± 0.44 Defenders d = 0.20 - p = 0.06† p = 0.13

3.40 ± 0.51 Midfielders d = 0.08 d = 0.27 - p = 0.99

3.40 ± 0.46 Forwards d = 0.08 d = 0.29 d = 0.00 -

Control subscale: (F3, 259 = 2.349; p = 0.07)

2.43 ± 0.50 Goalkeepers - p = 0.30 p = 0.60 p = 0.29

2.31 ± 0.55 Defenders d = 0.22 - p = 0.02* p = 0.88

2.49 ± 0.54 Midfielders d = 0.11 d = 0.33 - p = 0.04*

2.29 ± 0.56 Forwards d = 0.26 d = 0.04 d = 0.37° -

* Statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05) † borderline statistical significance (p ≤ 0.1)

° Moderate practical significance (d = more or less 0.5)


90

† Borderline statistical significance (p ≤ 0.1)

Figure 4.8: Comparisons between player positional groups for the constancy subscale



Figure 4.9: Comparisons between player positional groups for the control subscale

†

* * °


91

Table 4.21: Comparisons between player positional groups (ACSI-28)





Defenders (n = 85)


Forwards (n = 46)

Composite psychological skills subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.296; p = 0.83)

1.91 ± 0.39 Goalkeepers - p = 0.39 p = 0.40 p = 0.41

1.97 ± 0.32 Defenders d = 0.18 - p = 0.95 p = 0.95

1.97 ± 0.38 Midfielders d = 0.16 d = 0.00 - p = 0.91

1.98 ± 0.41 Forwards d = 0.17 d = 0.03 d = 0.03 -

Confidence and achievement motivation subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.230; p = 0.88)

2.22 ± 0.49 Goalkeepers - p = 0.69 p = 0.60 p = 0.94

2.26 ± 0.49 Defenders d = 0.08 - p = 0.86 p = 0.57

2.27 ± 0.51 Midfielders d = 0.10 d = 0.02 - p = 0.47

2.21 ± 0.55 Forwards d = 0.02 d = 0.10 d = 0.11 -

Coachability subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.525; p = 0.67)

2.25 ± 0.47 Goalkeepers - p = 0.33 p = 0.35 p = 0.22

2.36 ± 0.50 Defenders d = 0.22 - p = 0.92 p = 0.64

2.35 ± 0.57 Midfielders d = 0.18 d = 0.02 - p = 0.58

2.41 ± 0.56 Forwards d = 0.30 d = 0.10 d = 0.11 -

Goal setting and mental preparation subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.220; p = 0.88)

1.87 ± 0.65 Goalkeepers - p = 0.50 p = 0.45 p = 0.46

1.96 ± 0.59 Defenders d = 0.15 - p = 0.93 p = 0.87

1.96 ± 0.58 Midfielders d = 0.15 d = 0.00 - p = 0.93

1.97 ± 0.55 Forwards d = 0.17 d = 0.02 d = 0.02 -


92





Defenders (n = 85)


Forwards (n = 46)

Concentration subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.353; p = 0.79)

1.91 ± 0.46 Goalkeepers - p = 0.62 p = 0.60 p = 0.84

1.96 ± 0.53 Defenders d = 0.10 - p = 0.98 p = 0.40

1.96 ± 0.50 Midfielders d = 0.10 d = 0.00 - p = 0.37

1.88 ± 0.52 Forwards d = 0.06 d = 0.15 d = 0.16 -

Coping with adversity subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.651; p = 0.58)

1.89 ± 0.63 Goalkeepers - p = 0.49 p = 0.52 p = 0.18

1.97 ± 0.52 Defenders d = 0.15 - p = 0.93 p = 0.36

1.96 ± 0.57 Midfielders d = 0.12 d = 0.02 - p = 0.31

2.07 ± 0.57 Forwards d = 0.30 d = 0.19 d = 0.19 -

Peaking under pressure subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.494; p = 0.69)

1.95 ± 0.62 Goalkeepers - p = 0.83 p = 0.98 p = 0.39

1.98 ± 0.60 Defenders d = 0.05 - p = 0.73 p = 0.39

1.94 ± 0.64 Midfielders d = 0.02 d = 0.06 - p = 0.24

2.08 ± 0.66 Forwards d = 0.20 d = 0.16 d = 0.22 -

Freedom from worry subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.318; p = 0.81)

1.26 ± 0.70 Goalkeepers - p = 0.61 p = 0.60 p = 0.88

1.33 ± 0.68 Defenders d = 0.10 - p = 0.10 p = 0.43

1.33 ± 0.65 Midfielders d = 0.11 d = 0.00 - p = 0.41

1.23 ± 0.70 Forwards d = 0.04 d = 0.15 d = 0.15 -


93

Table 4.22: Comparisons between player positional groups (GEQ)





Defenders (n = 85)


Forwards (n = 46)

Individual attraction to group-social subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.348; p = 0.79)

6.92 ± 1.52 Goalkeepers - p =0.87 p = 0.46 p = 0.56

6.87 ± 1.40 Defenders d = 0.03 - p = 0.41 p = 0.57

6.89 ± 1.46 Midfielders d = 0.02 d = 0.01 - p = 0.92

6.71 ± 1.58 Forwards d = 0.13 d = 0.11 d = 0.12 -

Individual attraction to group-task subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.40; p = 0.75)

6.77 ± 1.82 Goalkeepers - p = 0.89 p = 0.87 p = 0.39

6.82 ± 1.77 Defenders d = 0.03 - p = 0.98 p = 0.34

6.83 ± 1.78 Midfielders d = 0.03 d = 0.01 - p = 0.34

7.12 ± 1.50 Forwards d = 0.21 d = 0.18 d = 0.17 -

Group integration-task subscale: (F3, 259 = 2.443; p = 0.06)

6.50 ± 1.20 Goalkeepers - p = 0.30 p = 0.09† p = 0.75

6.16 ± 1.57 Defenders d = 0.23 - p = 0.35 p = 0.11

5.94 ± 1.61 Midfielders d = 0.37° d = 0.14 - p = 0.01**

6.62 ± 1.68 Forwards d = 0.08 d = 0.29 d = 0.42° -

Group integration-social subscale: (F3, 259 = 0.647; p = 0.59)

5.34 ± 1.85 Goalkeepers - p = 0.40 p = 0.97 p = 0.47

5.63 ± 1.58 Defenders d = 0.18 - p = 0.24 p = 0.97

5.35 ± 1.49 Midfielders d = 0.01 d = 0.18 - p = 0.35

5.61 ± 1.74 Forwards d = 0.15 d = 0.01 d = 0.17 -

**p ≤ 0.01 ° Moderate practical significance (d = more or less 0.5) † borderline significance


94

† Borderline statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.1)



Figure 4.10: Comparisons between player positional groups for the group integration-task subscale

† ° ** °


95

Chapter Five

Discussion

The findings of this study will be discussed in relation to the three objectives outlined in

Chapter One, namely …

To investigate the role of age, experience level and the period

of time players had been part of a team on team performance,

by determining how each of these constructs differentiate

between more and less successful soccer teams.

To investigate the role of mental toughness, psychological skills

and team cohesion scores on team performance, by

determining how each of these constructs differentiate between

more and less successful soccer teams.

To determine whether the mental toughness, psychological

skills and team cohesion scores of soccer players in different

playing positions differ.

This study is novel in the sense that it is, as far as it is known, the first investigation to

employ the SMTQ, ACSI-28 and GEQ in a composite form to examine the role of mental

toughness, psychological skills and team cohesion among soccer players. The sample

were student soccer players and therefore, comparisons with other student samples

cannot be made.

Research of this nature calls for circumspection when interpreting the results because

they are based on a fairly small sample (263 players from 16 teams).

Player demographics

Age

Physical fitness is critical when players are confronted with the physical demands (e.g.,

agility and fast tempo) of the modern game of soccer. Increasing age might have a

potentially negative effect on players’ ability to cope with the physiological demands of


96

competitive sport (Castagna et al., 2005). This may be a plausible reason for the age

difference favouring the top eight teams in this study, where significant differences

emerged between the performance of the top eight and bottom eight teams.

Tournament experience

Previous USSA tournament experience appeared to have contributed to the differences

observed between the more and less successful soccer teams. The top four teams

clearly had more previous experience at this particular level than the remainder of the

categorized log positional teams. These results are in line with the findings of Perry and

Williams (1998) and Lazarus (2000) who indicated that previous experience is a strong

indicator of playing ability, psychological dynamics, and perceived cognitions in a

competitive environment. In addition, the familiarity and prior experience within a

competitive setting is thought to facilitate coping resources and the perceived

possibilities for success (Salvador, 2005). This could be a possible reason why the

successful teams (log positions 1-4) who had more USSA tournament experience,

performed better than the less successful teams.

Time period being a member of a team

The results revealed significant differences between the top four teams and the rest of

the categorized teams regarding the average number of months players had been part

of their respective teams. The top four teams had spent more time playing together as a

team which appeared to have influenced their performance. These findings are in line

with those of Widmeyer et al. (1985) who concluded that long-term familiarity among

players creates synergy, cooperative teamwork, interdependence, commitment and self-

sacrifice of personal considerations in order to accomplish team tasks. Mach et al.

(2010) concur with this by stating that the months or years shared playing together as a

team are deemed to be important in the cohesion-performance relationship.

Mental toughness and psychological skills

Mental toughness

With reference to the mental toughness measures used in the study, no significant

differences were found between the different teams’ performance levels as a function of


97

their tournament log placement. These findings run contrary to those of Jones et al.’s

(2002) and Gucciardi et al.’s (2008) proposition that mental toughness influences

performance, nor do they support Starkes and Ericsson’s (2003) contention that

psychological factors distinguish between successful and less successful athletes.

The failure of the findings of the present study to concur with previous investigations

may have stemmed from the fact that the attributes, development, maintenance and

measurement of mental toughness, have generally been sourced from Westernized

countries where the competitive environment and social cultural practices are essentially

different from the African or more specifically, the South African context. Gucciardi et al.

(2009e) proposed that one’s environment has a direct influence in the manner in which

mental toughness is conceptualised and developed. In reference to this observation,

Gucciardi and Gordon (2011) speculate that mental toughness might be a cultural-

specific construct (emic) as opposed to one that is universal (etic).

Moreover, the concepts, attributes and measuring of mental toughness are usually

based on the perceptions and experiences of elite and super-elite athletes (e.g., Clough

et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2002; Thelwell et al., 2005). In line with the above observation,

Jones et al. (2007) argue that the facets of mental toughness are better applicable

among athletes who have achieved success. The findings of this study are only partially

in line with Crust’s (2007) and Gucciardi et al.’s (2009d) assertion that mental toughness

differentiates athletes from different competitive levels. Thus at the same competitive

level of play, the psychological competitive edge might not always be visible.

Crust and Azadi (2010) are of the opinion that the differentiating nature of the mental

toughness construct often espoused in the literature (e.g., Clough et al., 2002; Jones et

al., 2002; Thelwell et al., 2005) has not been rigorously tested by research. Therefore,

one cannot confidently claim that mental toughness differentiates between successful

and less successful soccer players.

Psychological skills

One would expect that, the pressure on soccer players to represent their respective

institutions at the USSA Championship and attain success require a mindset that might

differentiate between the respective teams. However, no significant differences were


98

found regarding the contribution of psychological skills to successful performance. This

is contrary to the findings of Smith and Christensen (1994) in their study of basketball

players.

The findings of this study could be attributed in part to the nature of the game of soccer.

As evident in literature the type of sport is seen to influence the peculiar psychological

skills relevant to it (Hodge & McKenzie, 1999; Junge et al., 2000; Weinberg & Gould,

2011). However, the high scores on the confidence and concentration subscales of the

ACSI-28 by the successful teams (log positions 1-8), as well as the less successful

teams (log positions 9-16) might be indicative that some psychological skills may be

mutually inclusive across different competitive levels and different sports.

Other studies such as that of Smith and Christensen (1994) used athletes from different

competitive levels. However, in the current study participants were from the same

competitive levels.

Thus at the developmental stages of competitive play such as the USSA tournament,

certain distinguishing features (e.g., psychological skills) required for performance

excellence might not be fully developed and might therefore not be able differentiate

between successful and less successful teams. This observation reasserts Ericsson’s

(1996) suggestion that, the process of acquiring psychological skills is analogous with

the process of acquiring physical skills, entailing understanding, consistent training and

practice which systematically develops, stabilises and maturates at the elite and super-

elite levels. Also, the absence of significant differences in the current study might simply

reflect the variability within the groups (Meyers et al., 1994).

From the results, it appears that the players have problems with anxiety. This is

reflected in the low scores recorded on the “freedom from worry” subscale. The rather

unexpected finding of teams in log positions 9-12 recording better scores than the top

performing teams on this subscale could be attributed to these teams having moderate

perceptions about their ability to either win or end among the bottom tier teams. In

essence these teams (log positions 9-12) possibly experienced less anxiety owing to low

or moderate efficacy expectations. On the other hand, the top four and bottom four


99

teams might have been burdened with either high expectations placed on them to win

the championship or by the fear of ending at the very bottom of the log.

Team cohesion

Individual attraction to group-social (ATG-S)

The successful teams (log positions 1-4) recorded significantly higher scores on the

ATG-S subscale than the less successful teams (log positions 5-8 and 9-12). This lends

support to Prapavessis and Carron’s (1996) contention that ATG-S enhances

commitment, interdependency, member satisfaction and eventual team performance. A

possible explanation for this finding could be that a player’s appraisal of socially oriented

aspects of cohesion occurs both in a cognitive and an affective sense. This creates a

feeling of identity, belongingness and satisfaction within the group. The interactions

between the cognitive and affective elements inherent within a team precipitate

collaborative interdependence that enhances team performance. Such interactions not

only generate an atmosphere conducive to open communication, but also create the

fundamental processes for conferring socially desirable rewards, including positive

feedback and encouragement (Brawley et al., 1993).

Individual attraction to group-task (ATG-T)

The successful teams (log positions 1-4) obtained higher scores on the ATG-T subscale

than the less successful teams (log positions, 5-8, 9-12, and 13-16). The high score on

the ATG-T cohesion of the successful teams is indicative of its members’ strong

commitment to and involvement with the process of achieving goals of the group. This

observation is in line with Zaccaro and McCoy’s (1988) results which showed that, a

high interpersonal attraction and commitment to group task is critical to the cohesion-

performance effect.

Group integration-task (GI-T)

There were significant differences regarding the GI-T scores between log positional

teams 13-16 and cluster log positional teams 5-8 and 9-12. Grieve et al.’s (2000) and

Senecal et al.’s (2008) studies reported that GI-T discriminates between successful and

less successful teams. Contrary to these findings and surprisingly so, the current study


100

found that the bottom teams (log positions 13-16) recorded significantly higher scores on

the GI-T subscale than the top successful teams. This could possibly be ascribed to

their prior performance successes, as these teams may have built some level of

cohesion in relation to their task integration as a result of their qualifying matches for the

USSA Championship at the provincial league level. Moreover, Littlepage et al. (1989)

underscored that, the moderating variables that predict successful performance are

essentially different from those that influence cohesion. Thus if the other moderating

variables relative to performance (e.g., physical, mental skills, technical) are not

strengthened to augment cohesion, the general performance of the team would suffer

irrespective of strong task cohesion.

Group integration-social (GI-S)

There were significant differences between the four cluster groups regarding the group

integration-social cohesion subscale. Here again, the bottom teams (log positions 13-16)

obtained higher scores than their more successful counterparts. Studies (e.g., Chang &

Bordia, 2001; Paskevich et al., 2001) have reported increases in social cohesion as

influencing performance outcomes. On the other hand, there are indications that strong

social tendencies might also be detrimental for group functioning in a competitive

environment where performance outcomes are critical (Hardy et al., 2005). In addition,

high social inclination in a team could lead to conformism in group thinking, group

polarization and alienation of diversity both in the way these athletes think and play

(Rovio et al., 2009). Soccer is a game that relies on unity in diversity. In essence, it

requires interdependency and coordinated effort, but despite this, there is room for

individual brilliance and diversity in member’s skills and play.

Casey-Campbell and Martens (2009) intimated that exceptionally strong social

cohesiveness hinders performance excellence, as excessive social interactions might

interfere with the task objectives. This may be a plausible reason for the high GI-S

scores obtained by the bottom-tier teams in the current study, which affected their

performance negatively.

Despite the potential danger of social cohesion (GI-S) having a negative impact on a

team’s performance, coaches and athletes should not exclusively promote and


101

concentrate on enhancing task cohesion at the expense of the social needs of the team

(Zaccaro & McCoy, 1988).

Player position comparisons

Mental toughness

The SMTQ’s control subscale yielded statistically significant differences with the

midfielders (2.49 ± 0.54) scoring higher than the defenders (2.31 ± 0.55) and forwards

(2.29 ± 0.56). The concept of control as reflected on the SMTQ relates to the perception

that one is personally influential and can achieve desired outcomes with special

emphasis on controlling emotions.

The better control scores of the midfielders may be due to the intricate and unique

demands of their playing position: they act as the unit between the defenders and

forwards in ball distribution. Midfielders are required to create space when the team is

attacking and compressing space and putting pressure on the ball when defending.

Such dexterity in skills becomes increasingly difficult as the level of competition

progresses (Taylor, 1995). Therefore, the concept of control often mentioned in the

mental toughness literature (e.g., Clough et al., 2002; Thelwell et al., 2005) enables

these players to appraise stressful events with lower levels of stress and with strong

perceptions of control over a situation. In essence, a strong sense of control allows the

midfielders to manage both internal and external states in a less stressful manner when

achieving optimal performance. Consequently, since most of the battle for ball

possession happens in the midfield position, these players are exposed to many

opportunities to exert control.

There was also a trend towards significance for the SMTQ subscale of constancy (p =

0.06) in that the defenders (3.53 ± 0.44) scored higher than the midfielders (3.40 ± 0.51).

The concept of constancy indicates determination, personal responsibility, an

unrelenting attitude and the ability to concentrate on the task (Sheard et al., 2009).

Thus, a high score on this subscale indicates the avoidance of preoccupation with

negative outcomes, considering that preoccupation has been highlighted to influence

decreased effort and psychological momentum (Williams & Krane, 2001). Defenders are

required to prevent the incursions from opposing teams, keeping track of the movement


102

patterns of the ball and shielding the goalkeeper so as not to leave the goal area

exposed. The role demands of the defenders necessitate anticipatory skills,

determination and ability to maintain focus on various task related cues (Hardy et al.,

1996). These players (i.e., defenders) have to block out both internal and external

construed distractions inherent to the demands of their playing position. Thus, a high

score on the constancy concept is in line with demands of their position. With this in

mind, coaches and athletes should be encouraged to highlight a task oriented focus and

the positive outcomes accompanying performance processes (i.e. outcomes or

subcomponents) instead of duelling on the negativities of mistakes and poor

performances. This observation is in line with Andrew et al.’s (2007) proposition that,

periods in which an athlete is inactive actuate the tendency to contemplate on past

mistakes and match proceedings in general, thereby increasing the prevalence of

negative thoughts and worries which could decrease confidence.

Psychological skills

No significant psychological skills differences were evident among the players in the

various playing positions. This finding is in contrast with the results of other

investigations (Kirkcaldy, 1982; Cox & Yoo, 1995). For instance Kirkcaldy reported that

players in defensive positions in soccer exhibited stronger emotional stability than

players in attacking positions. He employed personality characteristics to examine

differences between player positions, however, personality traits are believed to be

relatively stable (Spielberger, 1971), while psychological skills are subject to

improvement (Boutcher & Rotella, 1987; Ericsson, 1996).

The absence of differences could be attributed to the fact that contemporary soccer has

evolved over the years with the progression and emphasis moving from one-

dimensional specialisation to more multi-skilled positional players. Many soccer players

have developed the skills and adaptability to assume other positional responsibilities to

seal any weakness in the team. The players are thus evolving more towards developing

and assuming multiple physical and psychological skills consistent with the different

roles of the positions that they have to deal with. This could be a plausible reason why


103

this study did not produce statistically significant differences regarding psychological

skills between players in different positions.

Team cohesion

A statistically significant difference was found between the forwards (6.62 ± 1.68) and

midfielders (5.94 ± 1.61) regarding their group integration-task (GI-T) scores, with the

forwards recording the highest scores. Forwards act as the specialised strikers of the

team with the main responsibility of scoring goals. Consistent with their role demands,

forwards need to have solid perceptual and decision-making skills to be in the right

range and position for a scoring opportunity. Such perceptual and decision-making skills

are augmented by closeness, similarity, and integrating with the group as a whole

around its tasks.

Similarly, there was a moderate practical (d = 0.37) and borderline statistically significant

trend (p = 0.09) between the goalkeepers (6.50 ± 1.20) and midfielders (5.94 ± 1.61) on

the cohesion subscale of GI-T with the goalkeepers scoring the highest scores. GI-T

reflects how a team functions as a unit to achieve important team goals. Therefore, a

high score on the GI-T by the goalkeepers is indicative of their commitment and

responsibility in ensuring and arranging the defenders in a more compact, uniform and

cohesive unit with the collective efficacy around its tasks to counter any threat posed by

opposing teams making incursions within the penalty area. The result is a more

coordinated and unified team both in spirit, purpose and shape consistent with the

modern demands of defence and goalkeeping in facilitating team cohesion and

performance.

In summary, there was a general lack of significant differences in 14 of the 16 different

subscale measures analysed in relation to the positional comparison of the soccer

players. A possible explanation for this occurrence may be due to the fact that within the

specific playing positions distinct roles exist related to the demands of that specific

position. For instance within the midfield position are: central midfielders, attacking

midfielders and defensive midfielders. Each of these positions deals with distinct role

demands and tactical play. For example, the role of a defensive midfielder is to

compress space and put pressure on the ball when the team is on the defensive. On the


104

other hand, attacking midfielders (often referred to as “box-to-box” players) are the link

between the midfield and the attackers and must be quick, flexible, have stamina, and,

above all, be very skilful on the ball. The physical and psychological skills needed for

maximal dexterity in these positions are different although collectively they are referred

as midfielders (Thelwell & Greenless, 2003; Thelwell et al., 2006). Within the current

study, the participants were not classified into the various types of midfielders or

defenders (central midfielders, defensive midfielders). This may have had a confounding

effect on the lack of differences in the results observed in this study.

Practitioners need to be knowledgeable about the role-specific requirements of players

in different playing positions to identify and implement appropriate psychological, and

physical training skills and interventions aimed at developing and building competent,

cohesive teams.


105

Chapter Six

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

The role of age, experience and team membership

The results of this study reveal a significant effect for age, previous tournament

experience and the time period that players were part of their respective teams on

soccer performance. The findings indicate that external, internal, controllable and

uncontrollable performance variables might significantly influence the success of a team.

This shows a need for coaches to avoid a skewed focus on physical and physiological

factors when preparing players for contests.

Mental toughness and psychological skills

The results of this study do not unequivocally confirm the established research findings

of mental toughness and psychological skills being essential for performance

excellence. The findings, however, support the proposition that mental factors

differentiate between athletes of different competitive levels and that accumulative

competitive experience is a critical factor in the development and stabilisation of mental

skills. Thus, at the same competitive level of play and the amateur status of the players

in the study sample, mental toughness and psychological skills may not have fully

developed to distinguish between the players. It is concluded that mental skills may only

mature and stabilise at the elite and super-elite levels of competitive play.

Team cohesion

The findings of this study conclude that cohesion is the only factor that differentiates

between successful and less successful soccer teams at this level of play. However, the

unexpected findings relating to cohesion with reference to the less successful soccer

teams recording higher scores on GI-T and GI-S give indication that, cohesion is not a

natural phenomenon that automatically activates with the formation of a group to

facilitate performance. Rather efficient cohesion necessitates the balancing integration

of both individual proclivities (e.g. goals, egos, objectives) and team dynamics (both task


106

and social) into a proficient team structure through effective leadership, vicarious

experiences, interdependency and satisfaction among group members to guarantee

success. It is speculated that due to the low level of mental skills development of the

sample, that team dynamics might stand out as a significant factor that discriminate

between successful and less successful teams.

Playing position comparisons

The results of this study partially provide support for the general research findings in the

literature that, a relationship exist between various mental constructs and playing

positions in team sports. Particularly, the findings did indicate that soccer players in

different positions could be differentiated as a function of their mental toughness

characteristics (i.e., control and constancy) and team dynamics dispositions (i.e., group

integration-task).

Moreover, the findings of this study yielded no statistically or practical significant

differences in the psychological skills among the players in different playing positions. A

possible explanation for this conclusion might be the evolution of soccer from single-

dimensional play to so-called “total soccer” where players have acquired multi-skills

(both physical and psychological) related to the different positional demands of the

game. Moreover, the discrepancy with regard to the players’ psychological skills again

indicates the relatively poor sport psychological skill level of the study sample.

It is important to note that the participants in this study were not a representative sample

from all the tertiary institutions in the country. Therefore, caution should be exercised in

generalizing the results to South African student soccer players in general.

Limitations

A limitation of many similar studies involves the shortcomings of self-report

questionnaires that rely on respondents’ retrospective accounts. This, together

with the phenomenon of social desirability, might also have been factors that

affected the conclusions drawn from this study.

Without knowledge of the participants’ prior exposure to psychological skills and

team-building strategies, it is difficult to discern whether the players were


107

knowledgeable about the positive effects and use (i.e., why, when and how) of

these skills to complement their performance.

The study design was cross-sectional and consequently participants’ responses

were gathered at a single point in time. This might not have concisely captured

the extant effect of mental toughness, psychological skills and team cohesion on

the performance dynamics of a team as these constructs may have evolved as

the tournament progressed.

It is possible that the absence of significant effects of mental toughness and

psychological skills on performance outcome in this study could be due to the

masking effect that group analysis has on individual weaknesses and strengths.

In addition, within-group variances may have contributed to the lack of

differences.

Recommendations

Research

1. Future research among student soccer players should examine their prior

exposure to PST programmes to determine their proficiency in using these skills

for self-improvement and performance in soccer.

2. Future research needs to implement more comprehensive methods of data

gathering. Ideally, both qualitative and quantitative data should be collected.

3. The current study was cross-sectional and so the conclusions were based on

responses from a single point in time. Future research should examine the

predictive validity of mental toughness, psychological skills and team cohesion by

examining the role of these constructs on performance over an extended period

of time.

4. There is a need for studies to focus on mental toughness, and mental skills usage

among student athletes, to supplement the customary studies that tend to focus

only on elite players.

5. Future research should establish whether mental toughness and the associated

positive effects on performance are cultural-specific. The Western cultural


108

dominance of mental toughness knowledge and research (Gucciardi & Gordon,

2011) necessitates the need for cross-cultural studies.

Applied practice

1. Sport psychology practitioners and coaches should attend to the individual

differences as well as the specific physical, technical, tactical and psychological

necessities of a specific sport. An appreciable knowledge of the antecedents,

characteristics and the playing demands in the specific sport is essential.

2. An awareness of the prevalent thoughts, and behaviours pre-, during, and post-

competition should form the foundation on which intervention programmes are

structured.

3. There is no exclusivity with regard to the psychological skills inherent in different

playing positions. Therefore, coaches should not instinctively or solely depend on

the use of psychometric tests to determine the demands of different playing

positions. Physical, strength, speed, technical and biomechanical abilities should

get preferential treatment when players adapt to and mature in the role-specific

demands of a specific playing position.

4. In the developmental stages of competitive play, team dynamics and

performance moderating variables may be the key to discriminate between

successful and less successful teams. Thus, sport psychology consultants and

coaches should consider the integration of team building strategies into their

intervention programmes. These should emphasise both task and social

dimensions of cohesion.

Summary

The findings of this study provide a glimpse of student soccer players’ strengths and

weaknesses regarding psychological and team variables pertinent to the game. A review

of the literature failed to identify another study that presents a composite report of

psychological and team variables inherent to soccer. This study will hopefully contribute

to an increased interest in and research into these dimensions in soccer.


109

References

ALDERMAN, R.B. (1974). Psychological behaviour in sport. Toronto: W.B. Saunders.

ANDERSEN, M.B. (2011). Who’s mental, who’s tough, and who’s both: Mutton

constructs dressed up as lamb. In D.F. Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.), Mental

toughness in sport: Developments in research and theory (pp. 71–90). London,

UK: Routledge.

ANDREW, M.; GROBBELAAR, H.W. & POTGIETER, J.C. (2007). Positional differences

in sport psychological skills and attributes of rugby union players. African Journal

for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, Special edition, 321-334.

BABE RUTH. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from BrainyQuote Web

site: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/babe₋ruth.html.

BAKER J. & HORTON, S. (2004). A review of primary and secondary influences on

sport expertise. High Ability Studies, 15: 211-228.

BALL, J.R. & CARRON, A.V. (1976). The influence of team cohesion and participation

motivation upon performance success in intercollegiate ice hockey. Canadian

Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 1: 271-275.

BANDURA, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.

Psychological Review, 84: 191-215.

BANGSBO, J. (1994). The physiology of soccer with special reference to intense

intermittent exercise. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 619 (Suppl): 1-15.

BARR, K. & HALL, C. (1992). The use of imagery by rowers. International Journal of

Sport Psychology, 23: 243-261.

BIRD, A.M. (1977). Team structure and success as related to cohesiveness and

leadership. Journal of Social Psychology, 103: 217-223.

BIRRER, D. & MORGAN, G. (2010). Psychological skills training as a way to enhance

an athlete’s performance in high-intensity sports. Scandinavian Journal of

Medicine & Science in Sports, 20: 78-87.

BOLLEN, K.A. & HOYLE, R.H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical

examination. Social Forces, 69: 479–504.


110

BOONE, K.S.; BEITEL, P. & KUHLMAN, J.S. (1997). The effects of the win/loss record

on cohesion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20: 125-135.

BOURGEOIS, A.E.; LEUNES, A. & MEYERS, M.C. (1996). Psychological skills

assessment and athletic performance in collegiate rodeo athletes. Journal of

Sport Behavior, 19: 21-32.

BOUTCHER, S.H. & ROTELLA, R.J. (1987). A psychological skills education program

for closed-skill performance enhancement. The Sport Psychologist, 1: 127-137.

BRAWLEY, L.R.; CARRON, A.V. & WIDMEYER, W.N. (1987). Assessing cohesion of

teams: Validity of the group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport

Psychology, 9: 275-294.

BRAWLEY, L.R; CARRON, A.V. & WIDMEYER, W.N. (1992). The nature of group goals

in team sports: A phenomenological analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 6: 323-

333.

BRAWLEY, L.R.; CARRON, A.V. & WIDMEYER, W.N. (1993). The influence of the

group and its cohesiveness on perceptions of group goal-related variables.

Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 75: 245-260.

BRAY, C.D. & WHALEY, D.E. (2001). Team cohesion, effort and objective individual

performance of high school basketball players. Sport Psychologists, 15: 260-275.

BULL, S.J.; ALBINSON, J.G. & SHAMBROOK, C.J. (1996). The mental game plan:

Getting psyched for sport. Eastbourne, UK: Sports Dynamics.

BULL, S.J.; SHAMBROOK, C.J.; JAMES, W. & BROOKS, J.E. (2005). Towards an

understanding of mental toughness in elite English cricketers. Journal of Applied


BURTON, D. (1992). The Jekyll/Hyde nature of goals: Reconceptualizing goal setting in

sport. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 247-261).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

BURTON, D. (1993). Goal setting in sport. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey & L.K. Tennant

(Eds.), Handbook on research in sport psychology (pp. 467-491). New York, NY:

Macmillan.


111

BURTON, D. & NAYLOR, S. (2002). The Jekyll/Hyde nature of goals: Revisiting and

updating goal-setting in sport. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology

(2nd ed.) (pp. 459-499). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

BURTON, D.; NAYLOR, S. & HOLLIDAY, B. (2001). Goal setting in sport: Investigating

the goal effectiveness paradox. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas & C.M. Janelle

(Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 497-528). New

York, NY: Wiley.

CALLOW, N.; SMITH, M.J.; HARDY, L.; ARTHUR, C.A. & HARDY, J. (2009).

Measurement of transformational leadership and its relationship with team

cohesion and performance level. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4: 123-138.

CALMELS, C.; D’ARRIPE-LONGUEVILLE, F.; FOURNIER, J.F. & SOULARD, A. (2003).

Competitive strategies among elite female gymnasts: An exploration of the

relative influence of psychological skills training and natural learning experiences.

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1: 327-352.

CARRON, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and

considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4: 123-138.

CARRON, A.V. (1986). The sport team as an effective group. In J.M. Williams (Ed.),

Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 75-91). Palo

Alto, CA: Mayfield.

CARRON, A.V.; BRAWLEY, L.R. & WIDMEYER, N.W. (1998). The measurement of

cohesion in sport groups. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise

psychology measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information

Technology.

CARRON, A.V.; BRAWLEY, L.R. & WIDMEYER, N.W. (2002). Normative data for GEQ.

In A.V. Carron (Ed.), Group environmental questionnaire: Test manual (pp. 42-

56). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

CARRON, A.V.; BRAY, S.R. & EYS, M.A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in

sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20: 119-126.

CARRON, A.V. & CHELLADURAI, P. (1981). Cohesion as a factor in sport performance.

International Review of Sport Sociology, 16: 2-41.


112

CARRON, A.V. & DENNIS, P. (2001). The sport team as an effective group. In J.M.

Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance

(4th ed.) (pp. 120-134). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

CARRON, A.V. & SPINK, K.S. (1995). The group size cohesion relationship in minimal

groups. Small Group Research, 26: 86-105.

CARRON, A.V.; WIDMEYER, N.W. & BRAWLEY, L.R. (1985). The development of an

instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environmental

Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7: 244-267.

CARTWRIGHT, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A.

Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and Theory (3rd ed.) (pp. 91-109). New

York, NY: Harper & Row.

CARVER, C.S. & SCHEIER, M.F. (1988). A control-process perspective on anxiety.

Anxiety Research, 1: 17-22.

CARVER, C.S.; SCHEIER, M.F. & WEINTRAUB, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping

strategies: A theoretical based approach. Journal of Personality and Social


CASEY-CAMPBELL, M. & MARTENS, M.L. (2009). Sticking it all together: A critical

assessment of the group cohesion–performance literature. International Journal

of Management Reviews, 11: 223-246.

CASTAGNA, C.; ABT, G.; D’OTTAVIOS, S. & WESTON, M. (2005). Age-related effects

on fitness performance in elite level soccer referees. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 19: 785-790.

CASTANEDA, B. & GRAY, R. (2007). Effects of focus of attention on baseball batting

performance in players of different skill level. Journal of Sport & Exercise


CATTELL, R.B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. New

York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.

CHANG, A. & BORDIA, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion–

group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32: 379-405.


113

CHANTAL, Y.; GUAY, F.; DEBREVA-MARTINOVA, T. & VALLERAND, R.J. (1996).

Motivation and elite performance: An exploratory investigation with Bulgarian

athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27: 173-182.

CLOUGH, P.J.; EARLIE, K. & SEWELL, D. (2002). Mental toughness: The concept and

its measurement. In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32-43).

London, UK: Thompson.

COETZEE, B.; GROBBELAAR, H.W. & GIRD, C.C. (2006). Sport psychological skills

that distinguish successful from less successful soccer teams. Journal of Human

Movement Studies, 51: 383-401.

CONNAUGHTON, D. & HANTON, S. (2009). Mental toughness in sport: Conceptual and

practical issues. In S.D. Mellalieu & S. Hanton (Eds.), Advances in Applied Sport

Psychology: A review (pp. 317-346). London, UK: Routledge.

CONNAUGHTON, D.; THELWELL, R. & HANTON, S. (2011). Mental toughness

development: Issues, practical implications and future directions. In D.F.

Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.), Mental toughness in sport: Development in theory

and research (pp. 135-162). London, UK: Routledge.

CONNAUGHTON, D.; WADEY, R.; HANTON, S. & JONES, G. (2008). The development

and maintenance of mental toughness: Perceptions of elite performers. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 26: 83-95.

COULTER, T.J.; MALLETT, C.J. & GUCCIARDI, D.F. (2010). Understanding mental

toughness in Australian soccer: Perceptions of players, parents, and coaches.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 28: 699-716.

COX, K.B. (2003). The effects of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict on

team performance effectiveness and work satisfaction. Nursing Administration

Quarterly, 27: 153-163.

COX, R.H. (1987). Relationship between psychological variables and player position in

women's volleyball. Unpublished manuscript, Kansas State University.

COX, R.H. & MCMANAMA, J.L. (1988). The psychological side of women’s volleyball.

Coaching Volleyball, 22-24.

COX, R.H. & YOO, H.S. (1995). Playing position and psychological skill in American

football. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18: 183-195.


114

CRUST, L. (2007). Mental toughness in sport: A review. International Journal of Sport

and Exercise Psychology, 5: 270-290.

CRUST, L. (2008). A review and conceptual re-examination of mental toughness:

Implications for future researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45:

576-583.

CRUST, L. & AZADI, K. (2010). Mental toughness and athletes' use of psychological

strategies. European Journal of Sport Science, 10: 43-51.

CRUST, L. & CLOUGH, P. (2005). Relationship between mental toughness and physical

endurance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100: 192-194.

D’ARRIPE-LONGEVILLE, F.; FOURNIER, J.F. & DUBOIS, A. (1998). The perceived

effectiveness of interactions between expert French judo coaches and female

elite athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 12: 317-332.

DAW, J. & BURTON, D. (1994). Evaluation of a comprehensive psychological skills

training program for collegiate tennis players. The Sport Psychologist, 8: 37-57.

DECI, E.L. & RYAN, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behaviour. New York, NY: Plenum.

DECI, E.L. & RYAN, R.M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in

personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation:

Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237-288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska

Press.

DECI, E.L. & RYAN, R.M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis of true self-esteem. In

M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency and self-esteem (pp. 31-49). New York, NY:

Plenum.

DRISKELL, J.; COPPER, C. & MORAN, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance

performance? A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 481-492.

DUNNING, E. (1999). Sport matters: Sociological studies of sport, violence and

civilisation. London, UK: Routledge.

ELOFF, M.; MONYEKI, M.A. & GROBBELAAR, H.W. (2011). Mental skill levels of South

African male student field hockey players in different playing positions. African

Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 17: 636-646.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routledge

115

EISLER, L. & SPINK, K.S. (1998). Effects of scoring configuration and task cohesion on

the perceptions of psychological momentum. Journal of Sport & Exercise


ERICSSON, K.A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to

some of the issues. In K.A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The

acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp.

1-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

EVANS, L.; JONES, L. & MULLEN, R. (2004). An imagery intervention during the

competitive season with an elite rugby union player. The Sport Psychologist, 18:

252-271.

EYSENCK, M.W. & CALVO, M.G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing

efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6: 409-434.

FELTZ, D.L. & CHASE, M.A. (1998). The measurement of self-efficacy and confidence

in sport. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sport and exercise psychology

measurement (pp. 63-78). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

FELTZ, D.L. & LANDERS, D.M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skills

learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5: 25-

57.

FESTINGER, L.; SCHACHTER, S. & BACK, K. (1950). Social pressure in informal

groups. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

FILBY, W.C.D.; MAYNARD, I.W. & GRAYDON, J.K. (1999). The effect of multiple-goal

strategies on performance outcomes in training and competition. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 11: 230-246.

FIORE, S.M.; SALAS, E. & CANNON-BOWERS, J.A. (2001). Group dynamics and

shared mental model development. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate

others in organizations (pp. 309-336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

FODER, E.M. (1976). Group stress, authoritarian style of control, and use of power.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 313-318.

FORTIER, M.S.; VALLERAND, R.J. & GUAY, F. (1995). Academic motivation and

school performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational



116

FOURIE, S. & POTGIETER, J.R. (2001). The nature of mental toughness in sport. South

African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 23: 63-

72.

GILL, D. & WILLIAMS, L. (2008). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise (3rd ed.).


GOLBY, J. & SHEARD, M. (2004). Mental toughness and hardiness at different levels of

rugby league. Personality and Individual Differences, 37: 933-942.

GOLBY, J.; SHEARD, M. & LAVALLEE, D. (2003). A cognitive-behavioural analysis of

mental toughness in national rugby league teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills,

96: 455-462.

GOLBY, J.; SHEARD, M. & VAN WERSCH, A. (2007). Evaluating the factor structure of

the psychological performance inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105: 309-

325.

GOLDBERG, A.S. (1998). Sports slump bursting: 10 steps to mental toughness and

peak performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

GOODMAN, P.S.; RAVLIN, E. & SCHMINKE, M. (1987). Understanding groups in

organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9: 121-173.

GORDON, S. & SRIDHAR, S. (2005). Identification and development of mental

toughness. In T. Morris, P. Terry, S. Gordon, S. Hanrahan, L. Ievleva, G. Kolt &

P. Tremayne (Eds.), Psychology promoting health & performance for life:

Proceedings of the ISSP 11th World Congress of Sport [CDROM]. Sydney:

International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP).

GOULD, D. (2005). Goal setting for peak performance. In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied

sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed.) (pp. 240-259).

Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

GOULD, D.; DIEFFENBACH, K. & MOFFETT, A. (2002). Psychological talent and its

development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14:

177-210.

GOULD, D.; GREENLEAF, C. & KRANE, V. (2002). The arousal-athletic performance

relationship: Current status and future directions. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in

sport psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 207-241). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.


117

GOULD, D.; HODGE, K.; PETERSON, K. & PETLICHKOFF, L. (1987). Psychological

foundations of coaching: Similarities and differences among intercollegiate

wrestling coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 1: 293-308.

GOULD, D.; PETLICHKOFF, L.; HODGE, K. & SIMONS, J. (1990). Evaluating the

effectiveness of a psychological skills educational workshop. The Sport

Psychologist, 4: 249-260.

GOULD, D.; PETLICHKOFF, L. & WEINBERG, R.S. (1984). Antecedents of, temporal

changes in, and relationships between CSAI-2 subcomponents. Journal of Sport


GOULD, D.; WEISS, M. & WEINBERG, R.S. (1981). Psychological characteristics of

successful and non-successful Big Ten wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3:

69-81.

GRAY, G.R. (1975). The relationship between team cohesiveness and team success at

various levels of basketball competition. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University

of Kentucky.

GRAY, R. (2004). Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: Expertise

differences, choking and slumps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,

10: 42-54.

GREGG, M.; HALL, C.R. & NEDERHOF, E. (2005). Imagery ability, imagery use and

performance relationship. The Sport Psychologist, 19: 93-99.

GRIEVE F.G.; WHELAN, J.P. & MEYES, A.W. (2000). An experimental examination of

the cohesion-performance relationship in an interactive team sport. Journal of


GROBBELAAR, H.W. & ELOFF, M. (2011). Psychological skills of provincial netball

players in different playing positions. South African Journal for Research in Sport,

Physical Education and Recreation, 33: 45-58.

GROUIOS, G. (1992). The effect of mental practice on diving performance. International

Journal of Sport Psychology, 23: 60-69.

GUCCIARDI, D.F. (2012). Measuring mental toughness in Sport: A psychometric

examination of the Psychological Performance Inventory and its predecessor.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 94: 393-403.


118

GUCCIARDI, D.F. & GORDON, S. (2009). Developing and preliminary validation of the

Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27: 1293-1310.

GUCCIARDI, D.F. & GORDON, S. (2011). Mental toughness in sport: Past, present and

future. In D.F. Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.), Mental toughness in sport:

Developments in research and theory (pp. 233–251). London, UK: Routledge.

GUCCIARDI, D.F.; GORDON, S. & DIMMOCK, J.A. (2008). Towards an understanding

of mental toughness in Australian football. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

20: 261-281.

GUCCIARDI, D.F.; GORDON, S. & DIMMOCK, J.A. (2009a). Advancing mental

toughness research and theory using personal construct psychology.

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2: 54-72.

GUCCIARDI, D.F.; GORDON, D.F. & DIMMOCK, J.A. (2009b). Developing and

preliminary validation of a mental toughness inventory for Australian football.

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 20: 261-281.

GUCCIARDI, D.F.; GORDON, S. & DIMMOCK, J.A. (2009d). Evaluation of a mental

toughness training program for youth-aged Australian footballers: II. A qualitative

analysis. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21: 324–339.

GUCCIARDI, D.F.; GORDON, S.; DIMMOCK, J.A. & MALLETT, C.J. (2009e).

Understanding the coach’s role in the development of mental toughness:

Perspectives of elite Australian football coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27:

1483-96.

GUCCIARDI, D.F.; MALLETT, C.J.; HANRAHAN, S.J. & GORDON, S. (2011).

Measuring mental toughness in sport: Current stats and future directions. In D.F.

Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.), Mental toughness in sport: Developments in

research and theory (pp. 108–132). London, UK: Routledge.

GULLY, S.M.; DEVINE, D.J. & WHITNEY, D.J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and

performance: effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group

Research, 26: 497-520.


119

GUTTMAN, A. (1993). The diffusion of sports and the problem of cultural imperialism. In

E. Dunning, J.A. Maguire & R.E. Pearton (Eds.), The sports process: A

comparative and developmental approach (p. 129). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

HACKER, C.M. (2000). Women’s world cup: Performance enhancement through mental

skills training. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 31: 363-364.

HALL, C.R.; RODGERS, W.M. & BARR, K.A. (1990). The use of imagery by athletes in

selected sports. The Sport Psychologist, 4: 1-10.

HANTON, S. & CONNAUGHTON, D. (2002). Perceived control of anxiety and its

relationship to self-confidence and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise

and Sport, 73: 87-97.

HANTON, S.; NEIL, R. & MELLALIEU, S. (2008). Recent developments in competitive

anxiety direction and completion stress research. International Review of Sport

and Exercise Psychology, 1: 45-57.

HARDY, L. (1997). Three myths about applied consultancy work. Journal of Applied


HARDY, J.; EYES, M.A. & CARRON, A.V. (2005). Exploring the potential disadvantages

of high cohesion in sports teams. Small Group Research, 36: 166-187.

HARDY, J.; HALL, C.R. & CARRON, A.V. (2003). Perceptions of team cohesion and

athletes’ use of imagery. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34: 151-167.

HARDY, L.; MULLEN, R. & JONES, G. (1996). Knowledge and conscious control of

motor actions under stress. British Journal of Psychology, 87: 621- 626.

HARDY, L.; WOODMAN, T. & CARRINGTON, S. (2004). Is self-confidence a bias factor

in higher-order catastrophe models? An exploratory analysis. Journal of Sport &

Exercise Psychology, 26: 359-368.

HARMISON, R.J. (2011). A social cognitive framework for understanding and

developing mental toughness in sport. In D.F. Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.),

Mental toughness in sport: Development in theory and research (pp. 47-68).

London, UK: Routledge.


http://books.google.com/books?id=tQY5wxQDn5gC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=world's+most+popular+team+sport&source=web&ots=6ns3wVUEGV&sig=SZPKYSDMJBrO1uV4mPxNbKyAuJY#PPA129,M1

120

HARRIS, D.V. (1985). Cognitive skills and strategies for maximising performance. In

N.K. Butts, T.T Gushiken & B. Zarins (Eds.), The elite athlete (pp. 145-162). New

York, NY: Spectrum.

HARRIS, D.V. & HARRIS, B.L. (1984). The athlete's guide to sports psychology: Mental

skills for physical people. New York, NY: Leisure Press.

HAYS, K.; MAYNARD, I.; THOMAS, O. & BAWDEN, M. (2007). Sources and types of

confidence identified by world class performers. Journal of Applied Sport


HEUZE, J.P.; BOSSELUT, G. & THOMAS, J.P. (2007). Should the coaches of elite

female handball teams focus on collective efficacy or group cohesion? The Sport


HILL, K.L. (2001). Frameworks for Sport Psychologist. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

HODGE, K. & MCKENZIE, A. (1999). Thinking rugby: Training your mind for peak

performance. Auckland, NZ: Reed.

HOWE, M.J.A. (1998). Principles of abilities and human learning. Hove, East Sussex:

Psychology Press.

JACKSON, S. & CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (1999). Flow in sport. Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

JAMES, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

JANELLE, C. (1999). Ironic mental processes in sport: Implications for sport

psychologists. The Sport Psychologist, 13: 201-220.

JOHNSON, L.; GRAHAM, S. & HARRIS, K.R. (1997). The effect of goal setting and self-

instruction on learning a reading comprehension strategy: A study of students

with learning disabilities. Journal or Learning Disabilities, 30: 80-91.

JOHNSON, J.M.; HRYCAIKO, D.W.; JOHNSON, G.V. & HALAS, J.M. (2004). Self-talk

and female youth soccer performance. The Sport Psychologist, 18: 44-59.

JONES, G. (1991). Recent developments and current issues in competitive state anxiety

research. The Sport Psychologist, 4: 152-155.

JONES, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in

competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86: 449-478.


121

JONES, G. & HANTON, S. (1996). Interpretation of competitive anxiety symptoms and

goal attainment expectancies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18: 144-

157.

JONES, G.; HANTON, S. & CONNAUGHTON, D. (2002). What is this thing called

mental toughness? An investigation of elite performers. Journal of Applied Sport


JONES, G.; HANTON, S. & CONNAUGHTON, D. (2007). A framework of mental

toughness in the world’s best performers. The Sport Psychologist, 21: 243-264.

JONES, G. & HARDY, L. (1990). Stress and performance in sport. Chichester, UK:

Wiley.

JONES, G. & SWAIN, A.B.J. (1992). Intensity and direction as dimensions of

competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 74: 467-472.

JONES, G. & SWAIN, A.B.J. (1995). Predisposition to experience debilitative and

facilitative anxiety in elite and non-elite performers. The Sport Psychologist, 9:

201- 211.

JONES, J.G.; SWAIN, A. & CALE, A. (1990). Antecedents of multidimensional

competitive state anxiety and self-confidence in elite intercollegiate middle-

distance runners. The Sport Psychologist, 4: 107-118.

JORDET, G. (2005). Perceptual training in soccer: An imagery intervention study with

elite athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17: 140-156.

JUNGE, A. (2000). The influence of psychological factors on sports injuries: Review of

the literature. American Journal Sports Medicine, 28: 10-15.

JUNGE, A.; DVORAK, J.; ROESCH, D.; GRAF-BAUMANN, T.; CHOMIAK, J. &

PETERSON, L. (2000). Psychological and sport-specific characteristics of football

players. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 28: 22-28.

KAZEMI, R.M.; KHABERI, M. & FAROKHI, A. (2003). The effect of mental training on

the performance of elite gymnasts. In Y.L. Hanin (Chair), Oral presentations.

Symposium conducted at the meeting of the 2nd International Congress on

Psychology Applied to Sport, Madrid, Spain.

KELLY, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York, NY: Norton.


122

KENDALL, G.; HRYCAIKO, D.; MARTIN, G. & KENDALL, T. (1990). The effects of an

imagery rehearsal, relaxation, and self-talk package on basketball game

performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12: 157-166.

KEPPLE, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

KIRKCALDY, B.D. (1982). Personality and sex differences related to positions in team

sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 13: 141-153.

KIRSCHENBAUM, D.S. (1984). Self-regulation and sport psychology: Nurturing and

emerging symbiosis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6: 159-183.

KOBASA, S.C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An enquiry into

hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 1-11.

KOBASA, S.C.; MADDI, S.R. & KAHN, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective

study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42: 168-177.

KOZUB, S.B. & MCDONNEL, J.F. (2000). Exploring the relationship between cohesion

and collective efficacy in rugby teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23: 120-129.

KRANE, V. & WILLIAMS, J. (2006). Psychological characteristics of peak performance.

In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak

performance (5th ed.) (pp. 207-227). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

KRUGER, A. (2010). Sport psychological skills that discriminate between successful and

less successful female university field hockey players. African Journal for

Physical Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 16: 240-250.

KRUGER, P. (2005). Psychological skills, state anxiety and coping of South African

rugby players: A cognitive perspective. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, North-

West University.

KYLLO, L.B. & LANDERS, D.M. (1995). Goal setting in sport and exercise: A research

synthesis to resolve the controversy. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17:

117-137.

LANDERS, D.M. (1980). The arousal-performance relationship revisited. Research

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51: 77-90.


123

LANDERS, D.M. & CRUM, T.F. (1971). The effects of team success and formal

structure on interpersonal relations and cohesiveness of baseball teams.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 2: 88-96.

LANDERS, D.M. & LUESCHEN, G. (1974). Team performance outcome and

cohesiveness of competitive coacting groups. International Review of Sport

Sociology, 9: 57-69.

LAZARUS, R.S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. The

Sport Psychologist, 14: 229-252.

LEE, K.; SHIN, D.S.; HAN, M. & LEE, E. (1994). Developing the norm of Korean table

tennis players’ mental toughness. Korean Journal of Sport Science, 6: 103-120.

LEFFINGWELL, T.; DURAND-BUSH, N.; WURZBERGER, D. & CADA, P. (2005).

Psychological assessment. In J. Taylor & G. Wilson (Eds.), Applying sport

psychology: Four perspectives (pp. 85-100). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

LENK, H. (1969). Top performance despite internal conflict: An antithesis to a

functionalistic proposition. In J.W. Loy & G.S. Kenyon (Eds.), Sport, culture, and

society: A reader on the sociology of sport (pp. 393-396). Toronto: Collier-

Macmillan.

LEVITT, E.E. (1980). The psychology of anxiety. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

LI, F. & HARMER, P. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Group Environment

Questionnaire with an intercollegiate sample. Journal of Sport & Exercise


LITTLEPAGE, G.E.; COWPART, L. & KERR, B. (1989). Relationships between group

environment scales and group performance and cohesion. Small Group Behavior,

20: 50-61.

LOCKE, E.A.; DURHAM, C.C.; POON, J. & WELDON, E. (1997). Goal setting planning

and performance on work tasks for individual and groups. In S.L. Friedman &

E.K. Scholnick (Eds.), The developmental psychology of planning: Why, how and

when do we plan? (pp. 239-262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

LOCKE, E.A. & LATHAM, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


124

LOEHR, J.E. (1982). Athletic excellence: Mental toughness training for sports. New

York, NY: Plume.

LOEHR, J.E. (1986). Mental toughness training for sports: Achieving athletic excellence.

Lexington, MA: Stephen Greene Press.

LOEHR, J.E. (1995). The new mental toughness training for sports. New York, NY:

Plume.

MACH, M.; DOLAN, S. & TZAFRIR, S. (2010). The differential effect of team members’

trust on team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83: 771-794.

MAHONEY, M.J. (1989). Psychological predictors of elite and non-elite performance in

Olympic weightlifters. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20: 1-20.

MAHONEY, M.J. & AVENER, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory

study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1: 135-142.

MAHONEY, M.J.; GABRIEL, T.J. & PERKINS, T.S. (1987). Psychological skills and

exceptional athletic performance. The Sport Psychologist, 1: 181-199.

MALLET, C.J. & HANRAHAN, S.J. (2004). Elite athletes: Why does the ’fire’ burn so

brightly? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5: 183-200.

MARSH, H.W. (1997). The measurement of physical self-concept: A construct validation

approach. In K. Fox (Ed.), The physical self: From motivation to well-being (pp.

27–58). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

MARSH, H.W. (2002). A multidimensional physical self-concept: A construct validity

approach to theory, measurement, and research. Psychology: The Journal of the

Hellenic Psychological Society, 9: 459-93.

MARTENS, R. (1987). Coaches guide to sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

MARTENS, R.; BURTON, D.; VEALEY, R.S.; BUMP, L.A. & SMITH, D.E. (1990).

Development and validation of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. In R.

Martens, R.S. Vealey & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117-

190). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.


125

MARTENS, R. & PETERSON, A.J. (1971). Group cohesiveness as a determinant of

success and member solicitation in team performance. International Review of

Sport Sociology, 6: 49-61.

MARTIN, K.A.; MORITZ, S.E. & HALL, C.R. (1999). Imagery use in sport: A literature

review and applied model. The Sport Psychologist, 13: 245-268.

MARTIN, S.B.; AKERS, A. & JACKSON, A.W. (2001). Male and female athletes’ and

non-athletes’ expectations about sport psychology consulting. Journal of Applied


MATHESON, H.; MATHES, S. & MURRAY, M. (1997). The effect of winning and losing

on female interactive and coactive team cohesion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20:

284-299.

MCCAFFERY, N. & ORLICK, T. (1989). Mental factors related to excellence among top

professional golfers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20: 256-278.

MCGRATH, J.E. (1962). The influence of positive interpersonal relations on adjusting

and effectiveness in rifle teams. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65:

325-332.

MELNICK, M.J. & CHEMERS, M. (1974). Effects of group social structure on the

success of basketball teams. Research Quarterly, 45: 1-8.

MEMMERT, D. (2009). Pay attention! A review of visual attentional expertise in sport.

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2: 119-138.

MEYERS, M.C.; BOURGEOIS, A.E.; LEUNES, A. & MURRAY, N.G. (1999). Mood and

psychological skills of elite and sub-elite equestrian athletes. Journal of Sport

Behavior, 22: 399-409.

MEYERS, M.C.; STERLING, J.C.; BOURGEOIS, A.E.; TREADWELL, S. & LEUNES, A.

(1994). Mood and psychological skills of world-ranked female tennis players.

Journal of Sport Behavior, 17: 156-165.

MIDDLETON, S.C.; MARSH, H.W.; MARTIN, A.J.; RICHARDS, G.E. & PERRY, C.

(2004a). Discovering mental toughness: A qualitative study of mental toughness

in elite athletes. Paper presented at the 3rd International Biennial SELF Research

Conference, Berlin, Germany. Retrieved on August 8, 2012 from


126

http://www.self.uws.edu.au/Conference/2004_Middleton_Marsh_Richards_Perryb

.pdf

MIDDLETON, S.C.; MARSH, H.W.; MARTIN, A.J.; RICHARDS, G.E.; SAVIS, J.;

PERRY, C. & BROWN, R. (2004b). The psychological performance inventory: Is

the mental toughness test enough? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 35:

91-108.

MISCHEL, W. & SHODA, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:

Reconceptualising situations, dispositions, dynamics and invariance in

personality structure. Psychological Review, 102: 246-68.

MORAN, A.P. (1996). The psychology of concentration in sport performers: A cognitive

analysis. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.

MORGAN, W.P. (1984). Selected psychological factors limiting performance: A mental

health model. In D.H. Clarke & H.M. Eckert (Eds.), Limits of human performance

(pp. 70-80). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

MORGAN, W.P.; O’CONNOR, P.J.; ELLICKSON, K.A. & BRADLEY, P.W. (1988).

Personality structure, mood states, and performance in elite male distance

runners. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 19: 247-263.

MORGAN, W.P. & POLLOCK, M.L. (1977). Psychologic characterization of the elite

distance runner. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 301: 382-403.

MORRIS, L.; DAVIS, D. & HUTCHINGS, C. (1981). Cognitive and emotional

components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry-emotionality scale.

Journal of Education Psychology, 73: 541-555.

MORRIS, T.; SPITTLE, M. & PERRY, C. (2004). Mental imagery in sport. In T. Morris &

J. Summers (Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, applications and issues (2nd ed.)

(pp. 344-387). Queensland, Australia: Wiley.

MORRIS, T. & SUMMERS, J. (1995). Sport Psychology: Theory, applications and

issues. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

MUDRACK, P.E. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of confusion. Small

Group Behavior, 20: 37-49.

MUELLER, F.; CANTU, & VAN CAMP, S. (1996). Team sports. Catastrophic injuries in

high school and college sports. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.


http://books.google.com/books?id=XG6AIHLtyaUC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=soccer+most+popular+team+sport&source=web&ots=QzydYB5Am0&sig=w_ouIgmegjytYFfWy7k92guTNfU#PPA57,M1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champaign,_Illinois

127

MULLEN, B. & COPPER, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and

performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115: 210-227.

MURPHY, S.M.; FLECK, S.J.; DUDLEY, G. & CALISTER, R. (1990). Psychological and

performance concomitants of increase volume training in elite athletes. Journal of


MURPHY, S. & TAMMEN, V. (1998). In search of psychological skills. In J.L. Duda

(Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp.195-209).

Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

NATION, J.R. & LEUNES, A.D. (1983). Personality characteristics of intercollegiate

football players as determined by position, classification, and redshirt status.

Journal of Sport Behavior, 6: 92-102.

NICHOLLS, A.R.; POLMAN, R.C.J.; LEVY, A.R. & BACKHOUSE, S.H. (2008). Mental

toughness, optimism, pessimism and coping among athletes. Personality and

Individual Differences, 44: 1182-1192.

NICHOLLS, A.R.; POLMAN, R.C.J.; LEVY, A.R. & BACKHOUSE, S.H. (2009). Mental

toughness in sport: Achievement level, gender, age, experience, and sport type.

Personality and Individual Differences, 47: 73-75.

NIDEFFER, R.M. (1979). The role of attention in optimal athletic performance. In P.

Klavora & J.V. Daniels (Eds.), Coach, athlete and the sport psychologist (pp. 99-

112). Toronto: University of Toronto.

NIDEFFER, R.M. (1981). The ethics and practice of applied sport psychology. Ithaca,

NY: Mouvement Publications.

NIDEFFER, R.M. & SAGAL, M. (2001). Concentration and attention control training. In

J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak

performance (4th ed.) (pp. 312-332). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

NIXON, H.L. (1976). Team orientations, interpersonal relations, and team success.

Research Quarterly, 47: 429-435.

NTOUMANIS, N. & JONES, G. (1998). Interpretation of competitive trait anxiety

symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs. International Journal of Sport



128

OGLESBY, C. (1987). Sport involvement and the potential for psychological growth:

Necessary conditions for psychological development. Association for the

Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Newport Beach: CA.

OMAR-FAUZEE, M.; DAUD, W.; ABDULLAH, R. & RASHID, S. (2009). The

effectiveness of imagery and coping strategies in sport performance. European

Journal of Social Sciences, 9: 97-108.

ORLICK, T. & PARTINGTON, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Sport


PAIVIO, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery in human

performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 10: 22-28.

PAPANIKOLAOU, Z.; PATSIAOURAS, A. & KERAMIDAS, P. (2003). Family systems

approach in building soccer team. Inquiries in Sport & Physical education, 1: 116-

123.

PASKEVICH, D.M.; ESTABROOKS, P.A.; BRAWLEY, L.R. & CARRON, A.V. (2001).

Group cohesion in sport and exercise. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas & C.M.

Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 472-494). New York,

NY: Wiley.

PAULUS, P.B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-

generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49: 237-262.

PELLETIER, L.; FORTIER, M.; VALLERAND, R.; TUSON, K.; BRIERE, N. & BIAIS, M.

(1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and

amotivation in sports: The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport &

Exercise Psychology, 17: 35-53.

PERRY, C. & MORRIS, T. (1995). Mental imagery in sport. In T. Morris & J. Summers

(Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, applications and issues (pp. 339-385).

Brisbane: John Wiley.

PERRY, J.D. & WILLIAMS, J.M. (1998). Relationship of intensity and direction of

competitive trait anxiety to skill level and gender in tennis. The Sport


PETERSON, A.J. & MARTENS, R. (1972). Success and residential affiliation as

determinants of team cohesiveness. Research Quarterly, 4: 62-75.


129

PODSAKOFF, P.M.; MACKENZIE, S.B. & AHEARNE, M. (1997). Moderating effects of

goal acceptance on the relationship between group cohesiveness and

productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 974-983.

POTGIETER, J.R. (2006). Sport psychology: Theory and practice. Stellenbosch, South

Africa: Institute for Sport Science, University of Stellenbosch.

PRAPAVESSIS, H. & CARRON, A.V. (1996). The effect of group cohesion of

competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18: 64-74.

REILLY, T.; WILLIAMS, A.M.; NEVILL, A. & FRANKS, A. (2000). A multidisciplinary

approach to talent identification in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18: 695-

702.

ROBBINS, H. & FINLEY, M. (1997). Why teams don’t work: What went wrong and how

to make it right. London, UK: Orion Business Books.

ROBERTS, G. (1993). Motivation in sport: Understanding and enhancing the motivation

and achievement of children. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey & L.K. Tennant (Eds.),

Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 405-420). New York, NY: Macmillan.

ROBERTS, G.C.; TREASURE, D.C. & BALLAGUE, G. (1998). Achievement goals in

sport: The development and validation of the Perception of Success

Questionnaire. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16: 337-347.

ROGERSON, L.J. & HRYCAIKO, D.W. (2002). Enhancing competitive performance of

ice-hockey goaltenders using centering and self-talk. Journal of Applied Sport


ROUSSEAU, D. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-

level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1–37.

ROVIO, E.; ESKOLA, J.; KOZUB, S.A.; DUDA, J.L. & LINTUNEN, T. (2009). Can high

group cohesion be harmful: A case study of a junior ice-hockey team. Small

Group Research, 40: 421-435.

SACKETT, R.S. (1934). The influences of symbolic rehearsal upon the retention of a

maze habit. Journal of General Psychology, 13: 113-128.

SAGE, G. (1977). Introduction to motor behavior: A neuropsychological approach (2nd

ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.


130

SAGE, G. (1978). Humanistic psychology and coaching. In W.F. Straub (Ed.), Sport

psychology: An analysis of athlete behavior (pp. 215-228). Ithaca, NY:

Mouvement Publications.

SALVADOR, A. (2005). Coping with competitive situations in humans. Neuroscience

and Behavioral Reviews, 29: 195-205.

SAMBOLEC, E.J.; NORBERT, L.K. & LAWRENCE, A.M. (2007). The role of

competitiveness at social tasks: Can indirect cues enhance performance? Journal

of Applied Sport Psychology, 19: 160-172.

SCHACHTER, S.; ELLERTSON, N.; MCBRIDE, D. & GREGORY, D. (1951). An

experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4: 229-

238.

SCHRIESHEIM, C.A. & MURPHY, C.J. (1976). Relationship between leader behaviour

and subordinate satisfaction and performance: A test of some situational

moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1: 634-641.

SCHURR, K.T.; RUSLE, V.E.; NISBET, J. & WALLACE, D. (1984). Myers-Biggs type

inventory characteristics of more and less successful players on an American

football team. Journal of Sport Behavior, 7: 47-57.

SEIFRIZ, J.J.; DUDA, J.K. & CHI, L. (1992). The relationship of perceived motivational

climate to intrinsic motivation and beliefs about success in basketball. Journal of

Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14: 375-391.

SEILER, R. & STOCK, A. (1994). Handbuch psychotraining in sport. Reinbek: Rowohlt.

SENECAL, J.; LOUGHEAD, T.M. & BLOOM, G.A. (2008). A season-long team-building

intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of

Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30: 186-199.

SHAMBROOK, C.J. & BULL, S.J. (1996). The use of a single-case research design to

investigate the efficacy of imagery training. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

8: 27-43.

SHEARD, M. (2009). A cross-national analysis of mental toughness and hardiness in

elite university rugby league teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109: 213-23.


131

SHEARD, M.; GOLBY, J. & VAN WERSCH, A. (2009). Progress towards construct

validation of the Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ). European

Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25: 186-93.

SHIN, D.; KIM, S. & LEE, K. (1993). A comparison of psychological factors between top

level and average players. Journal of Sport Science, 4: 65-93.

SILVA, J.M. & WEINBERG, R.S. (1984). Psychological foundations of sport.


SINGER, R.N. & JANELLE, C.M. (1999) Determining sport expertise: From genes to

supremes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30: 117-150.

SINGER, R.N. & ORBACH, I. (1999). Persistence, excellence, and fulfillment. In R. Lidor

& M. Bar-Eli (Eds.), Sport psychology: Linking theory and practice (pp. 167-191).

Morgantown, WV: Bookcrafters.

SMITH, N.C.; BELLAMY, M.; COLLINS, D.J. & NEWELL, D. (2001). A test of processing

efficiency theory in a team sport context. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19: 321-

332.

SMITH, N.C.; BURWITZ, L. & JAKEMAN, P. (1988). Precompetitive anxiety and motor

performance: A psychophysiological examination. Journal of Sports Sciences, 6:

115-130.

SMITH, R.E. & CHRISTENSEN, D.S. (1994). Psychological skills as predictors of

performance and survival in professional baseball. Journal of Sport & Exercise


SMITH, R.E. (2006). Understanding sport behaviour: A cognitive-affective processing

systems approach. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18: 1-27.

SMITH, R.E.; PTACEK, J.T. & PATTERSON, E. (2000). Moderating effects of cognitive

and somatic trait anxiety on the relation between life stress and physical injuries.

Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 13: 269-288.

SMITH, R.E.; SCHUTZ, R.W.; SMOLL, F.L. & PTACEK, J.T. (1995). Development and

validation of a multidimensional measure of sport specific psychological skills:

The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,

17: 379-398.


132

SMITH, R.E. & SMOLL, F.L. (1989). The psychology of ‘mental toughness’: Theoretical

models and training approaches to anxiety reduction in athletes. In C.C. Teitz

(Ed.), Scientific foundations of sports medicine (pp. 391-402). Philadelphia, PA:

B.C. Decker.

SMITH, R.E. & SMOLL, F.L. (1990). Athletic performance anxiety. In H. Leitenberg

(Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 417-454). New York, NY:

Plenum.

SPIELBERGER, C.D. (1971). Trait-state anxiety and motor behaviour. Journal of Motor

Behavior, 3: 265-279.

SPITTLE, M. & MORRIS, T. (1997). Concentration skills for cricket bowlers. Sports

Coach, 20: 1-24.

STARKES, J.L. & ERICSSON, K.A. (2003). Expert performance in sports: Advances in

research on sport expertise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

STATSOFT (2011). “Statistica (data analysis software system), version 11”.

[www.statsoft.com]. Retrieved 21 December 2012.

SWAIN, A.B.J. & JONES, G. (1996). Explaining performance variance: The relative

contribution of intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety.

Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 9: 1-18.

TAYLOR, J. (1995). A conceptual model for integrating athletes' needs and sport

demands in the development of competitive mental preparation strategies. The

Sport Psychologist, 9: 339-357.

THELWELL, R.C. & GREENLEES, I.A. (2003). Developing competitive endurance

performance using mental skills training. The Sport Psychologist, 17: 318-337.

THELWELL, R.C.; GREENLEES, I.A. & WESTON, N. (2006). Using psychological skills

training to develop soccer performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18:

254-270.

THELWELL, R.C. & MAYNARD, I.W. (2003). The effects of a mental skills package on

'repeatable good performance' in cricketers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4:

377-396.


133

THELWELL, R.C.; WESTON, N. & GREENLESS, I.A. (2005). Defining and

understanding mental toughness within soccer. Journal of Applied Sport


THEODORAKIS, L.N. & GARGALIANOS, D.G. (2003). The importance of internal and

external motivation factors in physical education and sport. International Journal

of Physical Education, 40: 21-26.

THOMAS, J.R.; NELSON, J.K. & SILVERMAN, S.J. (2005). Research methods in

physical activity (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

THOMAS, P.R. & OVER, R. (1994). Psychological and psychomotor skills associated

with performance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 8: 73-86.

TITLEY, R.W. (1976). The loneliness of a long-distance kicker. Athletic Journal, 57: 74-

80.

TREMAYNE, P. & TREMAYNE, B. (2004). Children and sport psychology. In T. Morris &

J. Summers (Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, applications and issues (2nd ed.)

(pp. 529-546). Milton, QLD, Australia: Wiley.

TRISTAN, J.C.; CLIFFORD, J.M. & GUCCIARDI, D.F. (2010). Understanding of mental

toughness in Australian soccer: Perceptions of players, parents and coaches.


TURMAN, P.D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on

team cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26: 86-

104.

VALLERAND, R.J.; DECI, E. & RYAN, R.M. (1987). Intrinsic motivation in sport.

Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 15: 389-425.

VALLERAND, R.J. & O’CONNOR, B.P. (1989). Motivation in the elderly: A theoretical

framework and some promising findings. Canadian Psychology, 30: 538-550.

VAN RAALTE, J.L.; BREWER, B.W.; RIVERA, P.M. & PETITPAS, A.J. (1994). The

relationship between observable self-talk and competitive junior tennis players'

match performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16: 400-415.

VEALEY, R. (1986). Conceptualization of sport confidence and competitive orientation:

Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport



134

VEALEY, R. (1988). Future directions in psychological skills training. The Sport

Psychologist, 2: 318–336.

VEALEY, R. (2001). Understanding and enhancing self-confidence in athletes. In R.N.

Singer, H.A. Hausenblas & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology

(2nd ed.) (pp. 550–565). New York, NY: Wiley.

VEALEY, R. & GREENLEAF, C.A. (2001). Seeing is believing: Understanding and using

imagery in sport. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal

growth to peak performance (pp. 247-283). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

VEALEY, R. & KNIGHT, B. (2002). Conceptualization and measurement of

multidimensional sport-confidence. Paper presented at the Association for the

Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology 2002 Conference, Tucson: AZ.

VEIT, H. (1973). Interpersonal relations and the effectiveness of ball game tennis. In

Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Sport Psychology. Madrid:

Instituto Nacional de Education Fisica Deportes.

WEICK, K.E. & ROBERTS, K.H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful

interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357-381.

WEINBERG, R.S. (1981). The relationship between mental preparation strategies and

motor performance: A review and critique. Quest, 42: 193-213.

WEINBERG, R.S. (1994). Goal setting and performance in sport and exercise settings:

A synthesis and critique. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26: 469-

477.

WEINBERG, R.S. (1996). Goal setting in sport and exercise: Research to practice. In

J.L. Van Raalte & B.W. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring sport and exercise psychology

(pp. 3-24). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

WEINBERG, R.S. & GOULD, D. (2011). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology

(5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

WEINBERG, R.S. & WILLIAMS, J.M. (2001). Integrating and implementing a

psychological skills training program. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport

psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4th ed.) (pp. 347-377).

Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.


135

WEINBERG, R.S.; YUKELSON, D. & JACKSON, A. (1980). Effect of public and private

efficacy expectations on competitive performance. Journal of Sport Psychology,

2: 340-349.

WEISS, M.R. (1993). Psychological effects of intensive sport participation on children

and youth: Self-esteem and motivation. In B.R. Cahill & A.J. Pearl (Eds.),

Intensive participation in children’s sports (pp. 39-69). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

WESTRE, K.R. & WEISS, M.R. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching

behaviours and group cohesion in high school football teams. The Sport


WHITE, A. & HARDY, L. (1998). An in-depth analysis of the uses of imagery by high-

level slalom canoeists and artistic gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist, 12: 387-

403.

WIDMEYER, W.N.; BRAWLEY, L.R. & CARRON, A.V. (1985). The measurement of

cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. London, ONT:

Sports Dynamics.

WIDMEYER, W.N.; CARRON, A.V. & BRAWLEY, L.R. (1993). Group cohesion in sport

and exercise. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of

research on sport psychology (pp. 672-692). New York, NY: Macmillan.

WIDMEYER, W.N. & MARTENS, R. (1978). When cohesion predicts performance

outcome in sport. Research Quarterly, 49: 372-380.

WILLIAMS, A.M. & FRANKS, A. (1998). Talent identification in soccer. Sports Exercise

and Injury, 4: 159-165.

WILLIAMS, J.M. & HACKER, C.M. (1982). Causal relationships among cohesion,

satisfaction, and performance in women’s intercollegiate field hockey teams.

Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 4: 324-337.

WILLIAMS, J.M. & KRANE, V. (2001). Psychological characteristics of peak

performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to

peak performance (4th ed.) (pp. 137-147). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

WILLIAMS, A.M. & REILLY, T. (2000). Talent identification and development in soccer.



136

WILLIAMS, J.M. & WIDMEYER, W.N. (1991). The cohesion-performance outcome

relationship in a coacting sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13: 364-

371.

WISLOFF, U.; HELGERERUB, J. & HOFF, J. (1998). Strength and endurance of elite

soccer players. Medicine of Science in Sports and Exercise, 30: 462-467.

WONG, F.H. & BRIDGES, I.J. (1995). A model of motivational orientation in youth sport:

Some preliminary work. Adolescence, 30: 437-452.

WOODMAN, T. & HARDY, L. (2001). Stress and anxiety. In R.N. Singer, H.A.

Hausenblas & C.M. Janelle (Eds.). Handbook of Sport Psychology (pp. 290-318).

New York, NY: Wiley.

WOODS, R.; HOCTON, M. & DESMOND, R. (1995). Coaching tennis successfully.


WULF, G. & PRINZ, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances

learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8: 648-660.

WULF, G.; SHEA, C.H. & PARK, J.H. (2001). Attention in motor learning: Preferences

for and advantages of an external focus. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 72: 335-344.

WYLLEMANN, P. & LAVALLEE, D. (2004). A developmental perspective on transitions

faced by athletes. In M. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise

psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp. 507-527). Morgantown, WV: Fitness

Information Technology.

XIANG, P. & LEE, A. (2002). Achievement goals, perceived motivational climate, and

students’ self-reported mastery behaviors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 73: 58-65.

ZACCARO, S.J. & MCCOY, C. (1988). The effects of task and interpersonal

cohesiveness on performance of a disjunctive group task. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 18: 837-851.

ZAICHKOWSKY, L.D. & BALTZELL, A. (2001). Arousal and performance. In R.N.

Singer, H.A. Hausenblas & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport

psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 319-339). New York, NY: Wiley.


Appendix A: Information Sheet and Consent Form

137


and team cohesion in soccer performance.

Information Sheet

Purpose of the study

The purpose of the study is to determine the role of mental toughness, psychological

skills and team cohesion in soccer performance. In addition, the study aims to

determine if there are differences between successful and less-successful soccer teams

with regard to their mental toughness, psychological skills and team cohesion.

Procedure

You are invited to participate in a research project by completing some questionnaires

during the 2012 University Sports South Africa (USSA) Soccer Championship, taking

place at the University of the Western Cape. Upon receipt of your consent to participate

in the study, you will be given a general overview of the study and its potential benefits.

After this, players’ mental toughness levels will be assessed by means of the Sport

Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ); their psychological skills by means of the

Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-2 (ACSI-28); and their team cohesion by the Group

Environmental Questionnaire (GEQ).

Potential Benefits for Soccer and/or Society

Exploring the role of psychological constructs in soccer might facilitate the effective

selection of good players, and more importantly the development of training methods

that advantage of psychological and team attributes considered important for optimal

performance. Furthermore, identifying the relationship between mental toughness,

psychological skills, and team cohesion and how it discriminates between successful

and less-successful teams will increase awareness about the importance of

psychological constructs and its application within youth academies and professional

soccer clubs.



138

Rights of Research Subjects

You may choose to be included in this study or not. You may withdraw from it any time

without penalty or any consequence to your position in your team. You do not need to

justify your decision If you withdraw from the study the researcher retain your data, but

only if you agree, otherwise your records will be destroyed.

You are not waiving any legal claims and rights because of your participation in this

research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject,

please contact Ms Maléne Fouché at the Division for Research Development (contact

number: (021) 808 46 22 or [email protected]).

Rights of the Researcher

The researcher reserves the right to exclude a player from the research project should

the participant fail to adhere to the instructions given during data collection.

Confidentiality

Any information about you that is obtained in connection with this study will remain

confidential and will be disclosed only with your written permission. However, the results

of the study may be published or disclosed to other people in a way that will not identify

you. All questions and data sheets will be numerically coded and no names will be

included in the data collection or analysis. All questionnaire-based information will be

used for data analysis then safely and securely stored in the Department of Sport

Science at Stellenbosch University. No one, except the researcher and project

supervisor will be able to access the raw data.

Further Information

If you have any questions regarding this study you can contact any of the researchers

detailed below. You will be given a copy of this information sheet and a consent form to

read and keep prior to indicating your consent to participate by signing the consent

form.

Master’s student: Benjamin Asamoah Supervisor: Dr. H.W. Grobbelaar Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Cell number: +27 71 992 3369 Cell number: +27 82 923 7305


mailto:[email protected]


139

The Human Research Ethics Committee at the Stellenbosch University requires that all

participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner, in

which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively

to the Administrative Officer, Human Research Ethics Committee, Division of Research

Development, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602



140


and team cohesion in soccer performance.

Consent Form (Participant)

I ___________________________ have read the information provided and any

questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in

this project, realising that I may withdraw at any time without having to provide a reason

and without prejudice and that any record of my participation will be destroyed unless I

give permission for the researcher to use my data.

The information was explained to me by Benjamin Asamoah and/or Oscar Nauhaus in

English and I am in command of the language.

I understand that all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be

released by the researcher unless required to by law. I have been advised as to what

data are being collected, what the purpose is, and what will be done with the data upon

completion of the research.

1. I understand that my participation is entirely voluntary and that I may

withdraw my participation at any time and without prejudice.

2. The raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in

secure storage for five years, after which it will be destroyed.

3. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the

study at any time.

4. I was informed that there are no costs involved for my participation in this

project.

Department of Sport Science

Stellenbosch University

MATIELAND

7602



141

5. I am aware that the assessments include the completion of the Sport Mental

Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ), the Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-2

(ACSI-28), and the Group Environmental Questionnaire (GEQ).

6. I am aware that if I have any complaints or if I am not treated with respect, I

may phone the human research committee contact person at the University,

Ms. Maléne Fouché at (021) 808 46 22; [email protected]

7. I may keep a copy of the participant information sheet for my own records.

8. I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published

provided that my name or other identifying information are not used.

Signature of the Player

The above information was given to me by Benjamin Asamoah and/or Oscar Nauhaus

in English and I am in command of the language. I was given the opportunity to ask

questions and these questions were answered to my satisfaction.

I hereby consent to participate voluntarily in this study.

________________________________________

Name player

________________________________________ ______________

Signature of player Date


mailto:[email protected]


142

Signature of the Researcher

I declare that I explained the information given in this document to the research

participant. He was encouraged and given ample time to ask me any questions. This

conversation was conducted in English.

________________________________________

Name of the Researcher

________________________________________ ______________

Signature of the Researcher Date

Research will be conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki, Medical Research

Council (MRC) guidelines and SA Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The researcher

conducting this study supports the principles governing both ethical conduct of research

and the protection at all times of the interest, comfort and safety of the participants. The

form and the accompanying information sheet are given to you for your own protection.

They contain a detailed outline of the project procedures.


Appendix B: Letter to the USSA Executive Committee

143

Dear Members of the Executive Committee USSA Football,

Permission to conduct research

I am currently pursuing a course of study leading to a Master’s degree in Sport Science.

I would like to request your permission to conduct research at the 2012 USSA Soccer

Championship.

I plan to do a quantitative study in which I will explore the perspectives of players’

regarding the role of mental toughness, psychological skills, and team cohesion in

soccer performance. My data collection entails the administering of questionnaires to

the sampled participants of the respective teams prior to the commencement of the

tournament.

My objectives in this study generally encapsulate the role of different psychological

constructs and the extent to which they discriminate between successful and less-

successful teams.

I have obtained permission from the Ethical Committee of Stellenbosch University to

conduct this research. I have attached a copy of the clearance form for your attention. I

guarantee total confidentiality of information pertaining to the participating players and

teams and will only report information that is in the public domain and permissible within

the law.

Please find attached a copy of the consent and information sheet which further explains

the whole concept of my proposed study. It includes my contact details as well as that of

my supervisor, to which any inquires and concerns could be forwarded.

I would be grateful for your approval and support of my study.

Yours faithfully,

Benjamin Asamoah.

Department of Sport Science Stellenbosch University MATIELAND 7602 1 October, 2012

1st. October, 2012


Appendix C: Measuring Instruments

144

DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCCER INFORMATION

1 Name:

Surname:

2 Your birth date: y

1

y

9

y y M m d d

3 Your age: Years

Months

4 What is your preferred language?

5 What is your primary playing position for this tournament? Goal keeper 1

Defender/ back 2

Midfielder 3

Forward/striker 4

6 For how many years have you been playing soccer? Years

7 Which University are you representing during the 2012

USSA tournament?

8 For how many months have you been playing with your current

team?

Months

9 In how many USSA soccer tournaments have you taken part?

(Your answer should include the 2012 tournament)

10 Contact details Cell number

E-mail address



145

SPORTS MENTAL TOUGHNESS QUESTIONNAIRE (SMTQ)

Please indicate your response to the following items by circling one of the numbers, which have the

following meaning;

1 = Not at all true 2 = A little true 3 = Mostly true 4 = Very true

Please answer these items carefully, thinking about how they relate to your main sport specifically.

Do not spend too much time on any one item. Please answer each question by circling the letter that best

describes how you are generally. Please answer the questions honestly. Thank you.

NOT AT

ALL

TRUE

A LITTLE

TRUE MOSTLY

TRUE

VERY

TRUE

1. I have an unshakeable confidence in my

ability A B C D

2. I get anxious by events I did not expect or

cannot control A B C D

3. I am committed to completing the tasks I

have to do A B C D

4. I worry about performing poorly A B C D

5. I have what it takes to perform well while

under pressure A B C D

6. I interpret potential threats as positive

opportunities A B C D

7. I get angry and frustrated when things do

not go my way A B C D

8. I take responsibility for setting myself

challenging targets A B C D

9. I am overcome by self-doubt A B C D

10. I get distracted easily and lose my

concentration A B C D

11. I have qualities that set me apart from

other competitors A B C D

12. I give up in difficult situations A B C D

13 Under pressure, I am able to make

decisions with confidence and

commitment

A

B

C

D

14. I can regain my composure if I have

momentarily lost it A B C D



146

ATHLETIC COPING SKILLS INVENTORY (ACSI-28)

Below you’ll find a few statements which sportpersons use to describe their sporting experiences. Read

through each statement very carefully and try to indicate how often you tend to experience these

experiences. Please answer each question truthfully. There are no right or wrong answers, only the

answer that is the most applicable to your current situation. Do not dwell on any one question for too

long. Please cross out the applicable answer and make sure that you answer all the questions.

1. On a daily or weekly basis, I set very specific goals for myself that guide what I do.

a. almost never b. sometimes c. often d. almost always

2. I get the most out of my talents and skills.


3. When a coach or manager tells me how to correct a mistake I’ve made, I tend to take it personally and

feel upset.


4. When I participate in sport, I can focus my attention and block out distractions.


5. I remain positive and enthusiastic during competition, no matter how badly things are going.


6. I tend to perform better under pressure because I think more clearly.


7. I worry quite a bit about what others think about my performance.


8. I tend to do lots of planning about how to reach my goals.


9. I feel confident that I will perform.


10. When a coach or manager criticizes me, I become upset rather than helped.


11. It is easy for me to keep distracting thoughts from interfering with something I am watching or listening

to.


12. I put a lot of pressure on myself by worrying how I will perform.




147

13. I set my own performance goals for each practice.


14. I don’t have to be pushed to practice or compete hard; I give 100%.


15. If a coach criticizes or yells at me, I tell myself to keep calm, and this works for me.


16. I handle unexpected situations in my sport very well.


17. When things are going badly, I tell myself to keep calm, and this works for me.


18. The more pressure there is during a competition, the more I enjoy it.


19. While competing, I worry about making mistakes or failing to come through.


20. I have my own game plan worked out in my head long before the competition begins.


21. When I feel myself getting too tense, I can quickly relax my body and calm myself.


22. To me, pressure situations are challenges that I welcome.


23. I think about and imagine what will happen if I fail or screw up.


24. I maintain emotional control no matter how things are going for me.


25. It is easy for me to direct my attention and focus on a single object or person.


26. When I fail to reach my goals, it makes me even try harder.


27. I improve my skills by listening carefully to advice and instruction from coaches and managers.


28. I make fewer mistakes when the pressure’s on because I concentrate better.




148

GROUP ENVIRNOMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (GEQ)

This questionnaire is designed to assess your perceptions of your team. There are no wrong

or right answers, so please give your immediate reaction. Some of the questions may seem

repetitive, but please answer ALL questions. Your personal responses will be kept in strictest

confidence.

The following statements are designed to assess your feelings about YOUR PERSONAL

INVOLVEMENT with this team. Please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 9 to indicate your level of

agreement with each of these statements.

1. I do not enjoy being a part of the social activities of this team.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

2. I’m not happy with the amount of playing time I get.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


3. I am not going to miss the members of this team when the season ends.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


4. I’m unhappy with my team’s level of desire to win.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


5. Some of my best friends are on this team.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


6. This team does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal performance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


7. I enjoy other parties rather than team parties

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


8. I do not like the style of play on this team

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


9. For me, this team is one of the most important social groups to which I belong.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9




149

The following statements are designed to assess your perceptions of YOUR TEAM AS A WHOLE. Please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 9 to indicate your level of agreement with each of these statements.

10. Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


11. Members of our team would rather go out on their own than get together as a team.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


12. We all take responsibility for any loss or poor performance by our team.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


13. Our team members rarely party together.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


14. Our team members have conflicting aspirations for the team’s performance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


15. Our team would like to spend time together in the off season.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


16. If members of our team have problems in practice, everyone wants to help them so we can get back together again.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


17. Members of our team do not stick together outside of practice and games.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


18. Our team members do not communicate freely about each player’s responsibilities during competition or practice.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. BEST WISHES FOR THE TOURNAMENT.


The role of mental toughness, psychological skills and team ...

Documents